Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
England Cricket 2023
Comments
-
But it wasn't a technicality was it. Carey caught the ball & within a second or two threw down the stumps. I've seen 'keepers wait longer for a player to lift their foot up on a stumping than what happen here. There was no waiting to see what Bairstow was going to do & Carey got rid of the ball very quickly.Pelling1993 said:
No rules in cricket, they’re laws. Picking the ball up and throwing it to the opposition i technically out if the opposition appeal too. Just because it’s a law doesn’t make it the right thing to doLargeAddick said:are people moaning about something that is actually within the rules of the game?
I have no problem with what he did. The error was all down to Bairstow. There was no need to leave his crease & wander down the pitch as if he was going off for tea. At the very least he could have grounded his bat to signify being "in". At least then the umpire might have had a call to make.
5 -
Rearrange the sentanceAddick Addict said:
But Carey threw the ball before Bairstow had walked out of his crease. He could legitimately argue that he thought Bairstow had been standing outside his crease when he threw it. It's not for the Umpires to ascertain why a keeper attempts a stumping be it because he's standing outside or because he goes for a wander. And what about Broad's "catch" so far as "spirit of the game" is concerned because that is what people are using to hang the Aussies with?killerandflash said:
I'll rephrase it. Bairstow thought the ball was dead. Obviously incorrectly, but that's completely different from the Marnus example.Addick Addict said:
But the ball isn't dead is it in any of those instances. We cannot argue that the Laws of the game only selectively apply. It is not for Bairstow either to decide when the ball is dead. It wasn't the first ball that he did this in the over either. And I bet you that had Carey missed the stumps and no one was backing up then Stokes would have called him through for a run. The likes of Atherton, Strauss and Morgan said as much. The trouble is too many players think that they know the Laws of the game when they don't. You teach school kids this, especially with the last ball of the over, that the ball is not dead until "over" is called.killerandflash said:Just taking one example, the Labuschagne incident is completely different. Marnus was batting outside of his crease. He was outside of his crease the whole time, until he quickly returned to ground himself before he was stumped. Bairstow by contrast was inside his crease the whole time, and only left when he thought the ball was dead. At the end of the over.
Balbirnie was still "within his stroke" when his back leg slightly raised, ditto Lara.
We cannot rely on this thing "spirit of the game" when there have been so many instances of us not following where we haven't. Broad not walking after middling the ball to a fielder is just another example. There would be a riot at some Saturday afternoon League games if a player did that having not been given out by the Umpire. We are not holier than the Aussies even if we like to think we are.
Yes he was technically out within the laws, but like Mankading or the Trevor Chappell underarm, it's a path which most players wouldn't go down.
Straws clutching at
csrey new what was going on0 -
I like Bairstow and he is a fantastic cricketer but the importance of sticking to your crease is taught to 10 year old kid's just learning the game. The reaction of those who have played professionally (Atherton, Hussain, Morgan etc) was all consternation at how he could have been so naive which I think says it all, it was naivety on his part which cost him his wicket and he has unfortunately learnt a very hard lesson.
The replays on Sky clearly showed him repeatedly coming off his crease in the deliveries leading up to his dismissal. If it had been a one off then I might understand the argument about it not being in the spirit of the game, but to do it repeatedly is just asking for trouble. I think the unusual nature of the dismissal makes it appear a lot more controversial than it was, however
it's unusual because most professional cricketers don't repeatedly stray from their crease whilst the ball is still in play.
It was a really smart bit of cricket and Australia are 2-0 up because they have been a little bit smarter than England in key moments, that being one of them.
I think the controversy over that dismissal, along with Stokes's outstanding display today, papers over some pretty big cracks for England. I've loved watching England under Stokes/Mccullum but some of the batting has been absolutely brain-dead at times and there does seem to be a whiff of arrogance at times from the England camp. It'd be interesting to know what the perception is in Australia of this England team because some of the interviews England have given have certainly come across quite arrogant.
They can of course point to a fantastic record leading up to the Ashes, and who knows maybe they could still win the series 3-2, but to bat like they did in the second test and then turn round and scoff at the idea they will change their approach for subsequent tests is really worrying. Nobody is suggesting the England batters need to turn into Dom Sibley but you can still have a gung-ho approach whilst also employing a little bit of common sense. Australia might not be quite as easy on the eye however they still play an attractive brand of cricket whilst employing a bit of cricket intelligence as well.
Perhaps I'm in the minority but I actually think this Aussie side have come across really well. They seem to have some really good characters and are playing really smart cricket as well, it might not be quite as entertaining as England's (Although it certainly hasn't been dull) however their approach is clearly working given there now 2-0 up and odds on to win the series.
3 -
After it happened I was raging, firstly at Bairstow for giving them the opportunity to do something like that and for the Australians for running with it. I was mostly raging because I knew what would be talked about and not how we had again made some pretty stupid cricketing decisions again.
Not interested in whataboutery, hopefully this puts a rocket up a few players that actions mean everything rather than words2 -
Talking about “spirit of the game” does anyone remember Don Kenyon (in the 1950s) the Worcester batsman, walking after he gave the slightest of touches to an outs winger from Ray Lindwall (probably - might have been Keith Miller). The remarkable thing, there was no appeal from the keeper or slip cordon and he walked anyway.Addick Addict said:
But the ball isn't dead is it in any of those instances. We cannot argue that the Laws of the game only selectively apply. It is not for Bairstow either to decide when the ball is dead. It wasn't the first ball that he did this in the over either. And I bet you that had Carey missed the stumps and no one was backing up then Stokes would have called him through for a run. The likes of Atherton, Strauss and Morgan said as much. The trouble is too many players think that they know the Laws of the game when they don't. You teach school kids this, especially with the last ball of the over, that the ball is not dead until "over" is called.killerandflash said:Just taking one example, the Labuschagne incident is completely different. Marnus was batting outside of his crease. He was outside of his crease the whole time, until he quickly returned to ground himself before he was stumped. Bairstow by contrast was inside his crease the whole time, and only left when he thought the ball was dead. At the end of the over.
Balbirnie was still "within his stroke" when his back leg slightly raised, ditto Lara.
We cannot rely on this thing "spirit of the game" when there have been so many instances of us not following where we haven't. Broad not walking after middling the ball to a fielder is just another example. There would be a riot at some Saturday afternoon League games if a player did that having not been given out by the Umpire. We are not holier than the Aussies even if we like to think we are.
Kenyon never made many runs for England in the few games he played, although he was a profilc scorer for his county.
0 -
We fucked up with the usual chucking away of wickets , was it 6 wickets falling for 46 in first innings and plenty of other missed opportunitIes. Look how well Aussies batted out the last 50 odd or whatever it was in the first test with 2 wickets left but Robinson and Broad (of course he was brilliant as second fiddle to Stokes ) tossed their wickets away .Just as Broad was a Cnut for not walking when he middled it (but I understand where the batsmen says I’ve been given out before when not out I don’t walk , even though I don’t agree with it ,personally if the oppo are cnuts my view on that is flexible)
and Collingwood was a proper Cnut for not withdrawing the appeal of our run out against New Zealand with the on field collision , in the spirit of the game .
Carey/ Cummins are cnuts for not withdrawing it in the spirit of the game .The Mancnut was not even witnessed by the umpires they were in the motion of moving on .
Each to their own and I sat with an Aussie mate for 5 days at Lord’s who has spoken to Carey a few times and said he’s the nicest bloke in the world (I’m pretty sure most on here are nice people and have been cnuts at some point in their life )
but to me , like the mankhad was a shithouse move without warning , the mancnut is a shithouse move, if bairstow was looking to seek an advantage or had a keeper up his arse waiting to stump him because his batting outside his crease or not in full control of staying in the crease like the examples above from AA then yeah take him .
but I’ll be there with the little fucktard kids , umpiring at junior level , for the next few years with having to whack the poxy stumps in to rock hard ground as little mr fuckwit throws them down when the batter is a yard in his crease
mankhadding attempts still go on and it’s pathetic and boring ,
we had an incident in our firsts on Saturday and the chump that did it didn’t like it when one of our players did an impression of it to him as he went to shake his hand at the end of the match.
the laws have to be in place and by the letter he goes , Spirit of the game(of course it’s an undefined mystical thing ) is up to each individual how they deal with it and I know what side of the fence I sit on where that’s concerned .
I’m a good bloke but I also know I’ve been a proper Cnut at times in my life , the difference is I’ve held my hands up when that’s happened .3 -
Agree 100% that broad should have walked, just the same as I despair when I see it happen week in week out in the Kent Leagues where there is no DRS and it completely down to the umpires. But that has become just part and parcel of the game even at that lower level.Addick Addict said:
They do it already. In the same way as young keepers hold the ball to the stumps waiting for a batsman to lift their foot. But did we need to win the Ashes so much that Broad could smash the ball into the hands of the slip and not walk? Wasn't that a sad day for the game? Because it was "within the spirit" of the game? We wouldn't have called an Aussie bat a cheat for doing that would we?billysboots said:
All this will breed is thousands of u11s all around the world throwing the ball at the stumps whether the batter is in his crease or not.Addick Addict said:
But the ball isn't dead is it in any of those instances. We cannot argue that the Laws of the game only selectively apply. It is not for Bairstow either to decide when the ball is dead. It wasn't the first ball that he did this in the over either. And I bet you that had Carey missed the stumps and no one was backing up then Stokes would have called him through for a run. The likes of Atherton, Strauss and Morgan said as much. The trouble is too many players think that they know the Laws of the game when they don't. You teach school kids this, especially with the last ball of the over, that the ball is not dead until "over" is called.killerandflash said:Just taking one example, the Labuschagne incident is completely different. Marnus was batting outside of his crease. He was outside of his crease the whole time, until he quickly returned to ground himself before he was stumped. Bairstow by contrast was inside his crease the whole time, and only left when he thought the ball was dead. At the end of the over.
Balbirnie was still "within his stroke" when his back leg slightly raised, ditto Lara.
We cannot rely on this thing "spirit of the game" when there have been so many instances of us not following where we haven't. Broad not walking after middling the ball to a fielder is just another example. There would be a riot at some Saturday afternoon League games if a player did that having not been given out by the Umpire. We are not holier than the Aussies even if we like to think we are.Was there today and it was a great spectacle, but if the Aussies need to do that to win the game then there is something wrong with the way the game is played.Great innings from Stoke and a thoroughly enjoyable day to watch live but on the other side of the coin it was a sad day for cricket.And this is my point - these guys are Guardians of the Game and the game deserves better.0 -
All well and good saying it hours after the incident though. Takes the focus away from Bairstows mistake by not checking like he had been doing previously as i noticed that.swordfish said:
No, because the appeal would have been withdrawn. Stokes said so. He doesn't strike me as a liar.1StevieG said:if Bairstow had done the same to Carey would we be chuntering as much? i doubt it.
The hurt for those Aussies trying to convince themselves, but not really believing, that they've done nothing wrong, will be greater knowing their own public don't support what they did, which many have already openly condemned.
To suggest the abuse doesn't bother them is nonsense. They're human aren't they? It might galvanize them, but it 100% bothers them. No doubt.0 -
You havent quoted the Australian Brad Hogg or Paul Nixon there though have you ? Who played pro cricket for far longer than Steve James and Mike AthertonAddick Addict said:I'm off to bed but will just leave Atherton's view plus those of Steve James who was a pro, as per today's Times, views which were also shared by Strauss and Morgan on Sky. That is three former England captains.Mike Atherton England have nothing to complain about, it was a dozy bit of cricket from Jonny Bairstow and reflected much of the flabby cricket played by England in this match..
Steve James I just don’t understand why players think they can just wander out of their crease. You used to have to seek permission from the captain and wicketkeeper to do so.
Brad Hogg - Bairstow wicket, Not Out. Spirit of cricket pushed to the boundary. Not attempting a run, end of over, scratched crease then walked for the regulation BS chat between overs between batsman.
Paul Nixon - Just arrived home & see the #Bairstow incident.Totally agree Hoggy he put his foot back in and held it a sec to respect the WK and that’s all it takes as respect.23 years as WK that all it takes from a batter a little foot hold. Poor it’s not the spirit of the game.4 -
Imagine the uproar if we did that to an Aussie player over there, we'd get absolutely slaughtered by their media and fans.5
- Sponsored links:
-
After sandpapergate the Aussies had a perfect opportunity to make a point to the cricketing watching world that the way the way the game is played is more important and they respect that. They failed to take it.billysboots said:
You havent quoted the Australian Brad Hogg or Paul Nixon there though have you ? Who played pro cricket for far longer than Steve James and Mike AthertonAddick Addict said:I'm off to bed but will just leave Atherton's view plus those of Steve James who was a pro, as per today's Times, views which were also shared by Strauss and Morgan on Sky. That is three former England captains.Mike Atherton England have nothing to complain about, it was a dozy bit of cricket from Jonny Bairstow and reflected much of the flabby cricket played by England in this match..
Steve James I just don’t understand why players think they can just wander out of their crease. You used to have to seek permission from the captain and wicketkeeper to do so.
Brad Hogg - Bairstow wicket, Not Out. Spirit of cricket pushed to the boundary. Not attempting a run, end of over, scratched crease then walked for the regulation BS chat between overs between batsman.
Paul Nixon - Just arrived home & see the #Bairstow incident.Totally agree Hoggy he put his foot back in and held it a sec to respect the WK and that’s all it takes as respect.23 years as WK that all it takes from a batter a little foot hold. Poor it’s not the spirit of the game.1 -
Well on by product of this incident is at least when we do play Millwall away, we will have a new chant for those upstarts:-
‘Are you MCC members in disguise’ 😀😀😀0 -
I heard a Convict cricket writer saying because of this incident they will be called cheats by the crowds over here now, ignoring the fact they already were.
What pisses me off most about this is their holier than thou attitude, especially when most of this current team were implicit in the ball tampering incident.4 -
So I've listened to McCullums interview after the defeat and a few of the players and I reckon I'm on the money here. Our batsmen, bar Root cannot handle the classic red ball tactic of soaking up the pressure approach by prodding, ducking and leaving for a couple of hours. They go all rabbit in the headlights and the pressure to score gets too much for them.carly burn said:It's been spoken about how this era has given us a bit of bite from where we were a year ago. But they are doing it by ultimately playing the shorter forms of the game in tests!
But when you come up against the likes of Australia it starts to look very suspect.
I'm becoming more and more of the opinion that Root aside, this country cannot produce test batsmen anymore. And for that reason, McCullum has came in and just said play the way you're good at. It's literally all we've got!
So the short overs format approach to test cricket is here to stay I'd say.1 -
It does paper over the cracks but don't forget the recent success this test team has had in recent series against India and NZ.
I think the problem lies in our bowling attack. It was so boring to watch. Only Tongue with real pace.3 -
I think Broad has been decent for the most part too. Anderson hasn't been his usual self (not helped by the Edgbaston pitch but it's a worry), and Robinson has looked very slow.ChiAddick said:It does paper over the cracks but don't forget the recent success this test team has had in recent series against India and NZ.
I think the problem lies in our bowling attack. It was so boring to watch. Only Tongue with real pace.
I hope Wood is fit for Headingley.2 -
So far as withdrawing the appeal is concerned, there are precedents where this could have been done and weren't. The Collingwood refusal was one and ironically another was when McCullum did the same thing as Carey to Murali. Both apologised later for not withdrawing the appeal and said that had they had their time again they would. But, in the midst of battle and with literally a matter of seconds to decide, they didn't withdraw the appeal either. It took McCullum ten years to do so! Perhaps Cummins might one day. Perhaps he won't.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the incident, whatever the claims and counter claims of "spirit of cricket" the fact it isn't the reason we lost this Test and certainly not the reason we lost the first one. It is deflection from that and arguably the man at the centre of this, Bairstow, who was lawfully stumped had a negative influence on both matches. Had Foakes been playing in both instead we might have won. We might not anymore than we might have won this Test had Bairstow been recalled. No one can say with any certainty whatsoever.
Both Oohaah and my son have confirmed that Carey is more than a decent bloke. As is Collingwood. As is McCullum. I'm sure that Cummins is too. Anderson is a great bloke off the pitch but can be one of the nastiest on it. But Carey and Cummins, because of this incident are treated as if they were murderers. Should Carey and his family be threatened with all sorts? Should he and his family be able to go out for a meal together without fearing that some arsehole is going to start something? That is far more of an issue to me. We cannot, on the one hand, be critical of Mourinho and the Roma fans threatening behaviour towards Anthony Taylor if we aren't equally critical of those who do the same to Carey and his family. No one died FFS.
2 -
ChiAddick said:It does paper over the cracks but don't forget the recent success this test team has had in recent series against India and NZ.
I think the problem lies in our bowling attack. It was so boring to watch. Only Tongue with real pace.
Will be interesting to see what bowling attack plays in the next test - could see Anderson and Robinson being rested for Wood and Woakes. Think Broad will thrive if there's a bit of an edgy atmosphere so I'd play him.0 -
The Bairstow dismissal actually meant we got way closer than we otherwise would have I think as it Galvanised Stokes & Broad. So it wasn't an issue of costing us the game for me. Just pathetic tactics.4
-
Bottom line is whether it was within the rules or not, or in the spirit of the game or not, this test will always be remembered by many as one where the Aussies won because of a bit of gamesmanship.That won’t sit easy with them, because overall they deserved their win.It’s easy to say that only the result matters, and to an extent that’s correct, but they’d much rather be remembered as a team that won the Ashes fair and square.
At 1-1 it would be all to play for, but at 2-0 it’s probably all over already, arguably because of this pivotal moment. It’s such a shame, because it was shaping up to be a great series.1 - Sponsored links:
-
Largely agree, but I think examples when the spirit of cricket is called into question should be called out and discouraged. Just because others have done similar is no justification, but maybe allowances should be made for heat of the moment unsportsmanlike decision making, if later retracted. I thought the same at Trent Bridge when I was there the day Broad didn't walk. That's just not cricket don't you know?Addick Addict said:So far as withdrawing the appeal is concerned, there are precedents where this could have been done and weren't. The Collingwood refusal was one and ironically another was when McCullum did the same thing as Carey to Murali. Both apologised later for not withdrawing the appeal and said that had they had their time again they would. But, in the midst of battle and with literally a matter of seconds to decide, they didn't withdraw the appeal either. It took McCullum ten years to do so! Perhaps Cummins might one day. Perhaps he won't.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the incident, whatever the claims and counter claims of "spirit of cricket" the fact it isn't the reason we lost this Test and certainly not the reason we lost the first one. It is deflection from that and arguably the man at the centre of this, Bairstow, who was lawfully stumped had a negative influence on both matches. Had Foakes been playing in both instead we might have won. We might not anymore than we might have won this Test had Bairstow been recalled. No one can say with any certainty whatsoever.
Both Oohaah and my son have confirmed that Carey is more than a decent bloke. As is Collingwood. As is McCullum. I'm sure that Cummins is too. Anderson is a great bloke off the pitch but can be one of the nastiest on it. But Carey and Cummins, because of this incident are treated as if they were murderers. Should Carey and his family be threatened with all sorts? Should he and his family be able to go out for a meal together without fearing that some arsehole is going to start something? That is far more of an issue to me. We cannot, on the one hand, be critical of Mourinho and the Roma fans threatening behaviour towards Anthony Taylor if we aren't equally critical of those who do the same to Carey and his family. No one died FFS.
I will say that I actually thought the incident made the result closer than it would probably have been otherwise. We have effectively lost these two tests and largely gifted them to Australia. One thing we have learned is that they will take any charity they can get to get over the line.
1 -
We won't have long to wait....the next one is only on Thursday! Crazy scheduling.1
-
I think any twunt on twatter threatening or whatever should be in trouble with the authorities , that's a given ....3
-
On another note and one that will pleased many Kent supporters and non even one Worcester fan
2 -
Moving on from yesterday's controversy. I think the big question is whether Broad can play his 3rd (or 4th if you include the Ireland test) test back to back. its become clear over the last few matches that he is now the leader of the attack. The way he has carried himself is excellent, he's pulled the other bowlers through and taken the fight to the Aussies. he's been given preference of ends over Jimmy too.
If Broady can play then I think selection is simple. Tongue stays, Robinson out Jimmy out Wood in Moeen in (since Rehan isn't in the squad for the next test) and if they choose to go with no spinner again then I would go rogue and call up Sam Curran to balance he side. His batting has got better and better over the last 2 years and being left arm he at least offers some kind of variety to the attack.5 -
no woakes? At this point he's pretty much a bowling all-rounder.cantersaddick said:Moving on from yesterday's controversy. I think the big question is whether Broad can play his 3rd (or 4th if you include the Ireland test) test back to back. its become clear over the last few matches that he is now the leader of the attack. The way he has carried himself is excellent, he's pulled the other bowlers through and taken the fight to the Aussies. he's been given preference of ends over Jimmy too.
If Broady can play then I think selection is simple. Tongue stays, Robinson out Jimmy out Wood in Moeen in (since Rehan isn't in the squad for the next test) and if they choose to go with no spinner again then I would go rogue and call up Sam Curran to balance he side. His batting has got better and better over the last 2 years and being left arm he at least offers some kind of variety to the attack.0 -
If we were gonna pick him surely it would have been at Lords (I would have had him in for Jimmy/Gobbo).kentaddick said:
no woakes? At this point he's pretty much a bowling all-rounder.cantersaddick said:Moving on from yesterday's controversy. I think the big question is whether Broad can play his 3rd (or 4th if you include the Ireland test) test back to back. its become clear over the last few matches that he is now the leader of the attack. The way he has carried himself is excellent, he's pulled the other bowlers through and taken the fight to the Aussies. he's been given preference of ends over Jimmy too.
If Broady can play then I think selection is simple. Tongue stays, Robinson out Jimmy out Wood in Moeen in (since Rehan isn't in the squad for the next test) and if they choose to go with no spinner again then I would go rogue and call up Sam Curran to balance he side. His batting has got better and better over the last 2 years and being left arm he at least offers some kind of variety to the attack.
He could do the role I suggested Sam Curran for but he doesn't have the left arm variation that Sam brings. Depends on the pitches too. If Jimmy is struggling on flat wickets I don't think Woakes will have much more joy. But he does balance the batting order somewhat.0 -
Woakes for batting I'd say. It's pathetic that we literally give up after losing 6 wickets. That isn't good enough in test cricket. Broad although he did well to support Stokes, was cheaply dismissed as was Robinson.1
-
woakes and moeen would beef up our lower order a large amount. I do think we should play wood and tongue in the same team, but then is it fair to expect tongue/wood to lead the bowling with broad? Especially as broad is playing a back-to-back test.0
-
This is the key point for me. After sandgate there was supposed to have a re-evaluation of how they play the game - moving away from win at all costs to showing more respect for the spirit of the game. Yesterday showed that was all bollox - same old Aussies...billysboots said:
After sandpapergate the Aussies had a perfect opportunity to make a point to the cricketing watching world that the way the way the game is played is more important and they respect that. They failed to take it.billysboots said:
You havent quoted the Australian Brad Hogg or Paul Nixon there though have you ? Who played pro cricket for far longer than Steve James and Mike AthertonAddick Addict said:I'm off to bed but will just leave Atherton's view plus those of Steve James who was a pro, as per today's Times, views which were also shared by Strauss and Morgan on Sky. That is three former England captains.Mike Atherton England have nothing to complain about, it was a dozy bit of cricket from Jonny Bairstow and reflected much of the flabby cricket played by England in this match..
Steve James I just don’t understand why players think they can just wander out of their crease. You used to have to seek permission from the captain and wicketkeeper to do so.
Brad Hogg - Bairstow wicket, Not Out. Spirit of cricket pushed to the boundary. Not attempting a run, end of over, scratched crease then walked for the regulation BS chat between overs between batsman.
Paul Nixon - Just arrived home & see the #Bairstow incident.Totally agree Hoggy he put his foot back in and held it a sec to respect the WK and that’s all it takes as respect.23 years as WK that all it takes from a batter a little foot hold. Poor it’s not the spirit of the game.4
