Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
England Cricket 2023
Comments
-
Told you this lot are a bunch of Winkers, literally can't stand any of them. Although technically speaking they are within the rules etc. but how petty if thats the way they want to win, awful behaviour. I really hope they have riled our lot enough to really go for them and make a fight of this.
Could have been 2-0 England so its a bit harsh, nearly the reverse of the first test where a few wickets to get 70 runs if i remember correctly? not exactly but similar with the last wicket stand etc. but we failed... although that Bairstow stumping was key.
Yuck, Yuck, Yuck!2 -
The big difference with Bell, and Alvin Kallicharran, was their dismissals were the last ball of the session/day.Chizz said:I don't think anyone is suggesting it wasn't out. And I think there are plenty of other parallels where shady, within-the-laws acts have been carried out which, while not illegal, are unsporting. Bairstow should have had his wits about him. The (three) umpires eventually came to the right decision. Cummins didn't do his reputation any good by not withdrawing the appeal. He might be utterly sanguine about his reputation, however.
I think the best analogy isn't the numerous mankads that have taken place; various stumpings from keepers standing up or back; or Stuart Broad not walking when given not out, ten years ago at Trent Bridge having hit the ball into the Haddin's gloves who then spilled the catch, taken by Clarke at slip.
The best analogy, in my view, is Ian Bell's "run out" at the same ground, two years earlier. Eoin Morgan flicked a ball off his legs towards the square leg boundary. The fielder dived to save the ball and landed the other side of the rope, unaware that he'd prevented the boundary. He picked it up and lobbed it back in. Dhoni effected a relay return, a fielder took the bails off, appealed and, eventually Bell was given out. Correct decision made. Fielding team acting immediately within the laws of the game. And, as Shane Warne commentating said "if you go by the Spirit of the Game, that's not on".
Where the events of 2011 and 2023 differ is that India's captain took the magnanimous, sporting decision to withdraw his appeal and allow Ian Bell to continue his innings. He won an ICC Spirit of Cricket award for doing so. Cummins failed in this regard. Within the Laws, outside the Spirit.
I am not sure either of those would have been withdrawn "in the heat of the moment" the latter certainly wouldn't have been.
1 -
So like Collingwood when Elliot was run out. And like McCullum when he ran Murali out when the assumption was that the ball was dead because Sangakkara had reached his ton. Both apologised later. In McCullum's case it was ten years later! Cummins, if he feels that it was unsporting might do too in time. Or he might not. It doesn't change the fact that we are trying to claim the moral high ground when a captain of ours (Collingwood) and current coach (McCullum) both didn't withdraw the appeal.Chizz said:I don't think anyone is suggesting it wasn't out. And I think there are plenty of other parallels where shady, within-the-laws acts have been carried out which, while not illegal, are unsporting. Bairstow should have had his wits about him. The (three) umpires eventually came to the right decision. Cummins didn't do his reputation any good by not withdrawing the appeal. He might be utterly sanguine about his reputation, however.
I think the best analogy isn't the numerous mankads that have taken place; various stumpings from keepers standing up or back; or Stuart Broad not walking when given not out, ten years ago at Trent Bridge having hit the ball into the Haddin's gloves who then spilled the catch, taken by Clarke at slip.
The best analogy, in my view, is Ian Bell's "run out" at the same ground, two years earlier. Eoin Morgan flicked a ball off his legs towards the square leg boundary. The fielder dived to save the ball and landed the other side of the rope, unaware that he'd prevented the boundary. He picked it up and lobbed it back in. Dhoni effected a relay return, a fielder took the bails off, appealed and, eventually Bell was given out. Correct decision made. Fielding team acting immediately within the laws of the game. And, as Shane Warne commentating said "if you go by the Spirit of the Game, that's not on".
Where the events of 2011 and 2023 differ is that India's captain took the magnanimous, sporting decision to withdraw his appeal and allow Ian Bell to continue his innings. He won an ICC Spirit of Cricket award for doing so. Cummins failed in this regard. Within the Laws, outside the Spirit.
McCullum is being a bit of a hypocrite in saying he won't be having a drink with the Aussie coach any time soon isn't he given that he not only did the same thing but didn't apologise for a decade for doing so? The reason he's said that is that he cannot say we were beaten fair and square in both Tests. He's using the incident as deflection, As is Stokes. Because they need to convince their team that they are good enough to beat the Aussies and using the Bairstow incident aids that cause. Show me a winner that doesn't mind losing and I'll show you a liar.
The whole episode would not have happened if Bairstow did what virtually every cricketer in the land does and he didn't do for one ball in that over. No one would be having this argument if he had.1 -
Disagree.Addick Addict said:Whether the keeper is standing up or standing back is irrelevant to the argument. If the batsman walks out of the crease as soon as the keeper takes the ball standing up and the keeper takes the bails off, that that is out. That is all that Carey did standing back. There was no delay in the attempted stumping. In fact, standing that far back a keeper simply cannot actually see exactly whether the batsman is standing be it inside or outside the crease, especially if it is a matter of inches either side of the line, so the shy at the stumps can be a "throw and hope". As I say, Carey threw the ball as soon as he gathered it. We can assume that this was because he had seen Bairstow do the same thing for the previous balls in the over but that is, once again, irrelevant because he did not wait to throw the ball until such time as Bairstow had left the crease.
The argument about the Umpire getting the cap out is also irrelevant if one considers, again, that Bairstow had done exactly the same thing for the other balls in the over. The cap removal wasn't Bairstow's signal for him to leave his crease on those other occasions and it wasn't for the final ball either because, in each and every case, Bairstow was unilaterally deciding that the ball was dead - in that over he didn't actually once look back at where the ball was which I find, amazing because that is what you are meant to do in coming to an agreement with the fielding side that the ball is dead. You look to see if the keeper has released the ball to another fielder. Equally, tapping your bat does not make you in any more than doing so with the keeper standing back or standing up. Otherwise every batsman could just do so and shout "in".
Bairstow was dozy but also demonstrated his ignorance so far as the Laws are concerned. We've seen footage of him attempting to stump, standing back, the Aussies and in his head that's OK because the batsman might be standing out of his crease. Going for a walk before the ball is dead is exactly the same thing for the reasons I've set out above and it is not for him to decide when the ball is dead.
Having said all of the above, I still come back to this one thing. Why are people getting their knickers in a twist over this incident when it wasn't the reason we lost two Tests? Because it helps to hate the Aussies more or because they really do feel that it was the defining moment in this Test? I'm sure that the Aussies could argue the same thing about Starc's catch because he had both hands around the ball at the time the catch was taken . But he did not have control of the ball as defined by the Laws - and this is, as has been suggested, being looked at because in that situation it is dangerous, when moving at that speed, to brace yourself for a fall with your wrist pointing down because that can cause serious damage. But the current Law is that if you ground the ball on falling it is "not out". The Aussies had to suck that up. And we have to suck up the fact that Bairstow was out and we have far bigger issues to resolve if we are going to win back the Ashes.
Obviously Bairstow was dozy for wandering outside his crease before the ball was dead but there is clearly a difference between someone batting outside their crease - they are only doing so to gain an advantage - and someone being a bit hasty in believing the ball is dead and going for a wander a bit early.
The difference being Bairstow wasn't trying to gain any form of advantage.
Was it stupid - yes.
Is it out by the laws - yes.
Is it one of the situations where the spirit of the game is relevant - also yes. Even more so than the usual situations such as a Mankad because of the point about gaining advantage5 -
Said this at the time, they bottled making the call on whether the ball was dead or not. What you say above is exactly what should have happened.kinveachyaddick said:
Agree. I think the umpires were at fault. No idea why they sent the decision up to the third umpire - Stevie Wonder could see that Bairstow was out of his ground. They should have wondered over to each other, and conferred on whether in their opinion the ball was dead. If they both thought it was then not out - tell Cummins it was over. If they agreed that technically it wasn't dead, ask Cummins if he'd like to withdraw his appeal. Real abdication of responsibility from the pair of them.Cafc43v3r said:
Did they use DRS for Crawley and Bairstow in the first test when they were well out?Addick Addict said:
Then the Umpires can't give it out. But the question is irrelevant because there is DRS. That is the purpose of DRS and it is used for every single stumping too.Cafc43v3r said:
So I'll ask a different question, what would have happened if there was no DRS?North Lower Neil said:
They didn't see it - both were looking down, one to get a cap, the other just because he thought the ball had been done, I guessCafc43v3r said:The big question I have is why did neither of the on field umpires give it out? He was "out" by a mile.
They'd have assumed it was thrown in by the wicketkeeper etc, but you can't give what you didn't actually see.
Bairstow was at least a yard out the fact that the square leg umpire was walking away and not looking, he only turned his head once the ball hit the stumps, suggests he believed the ball to be dead as well?
For what it's worth I don't think the Australians did anything wrong but I can also see that Bairstow AND the umpires belived the ball was dead.
Poor from Bairstow and very ordinary from the umpires though.0 -
Pope OUT for the remaining 3 tests. Needs surgery on dislocated shoulder.0
-
should mean foakes getting a call and bairstow pushed up the order. Who can bat 3?JohnBoyUK said:Pope OUT for the remaining 3 tests. Needs surgery on dislocated shoulder.0 -
But how is a batsman "seeking to gain an advantage" when a keeper, standing up to the stumps, waits for 5 seconds to see if the batsman lifts his foot in the cases of the Foakes and Stewart stumpings. He isn't and in fact I would argue for the Foakes' one that Balbirnie was trying to get up using his bat. Stewart for the Lara dismissal waited longer to attempt it than Carey did if one looks from the point that they took the ball.cantersaddick said:
Disagree.Addick Addict said:Whether the keeper is standing up or standing back is irrelevant to the argument. If the batsman walks out of the crease as soon as the keeper takes the ball standing up and the keeper takes the bails off, that that is out. That is all that Carey did standing back. There was no delay in the attempted stumping. In fact, standing that far back a keeper simply cannot actually see exactly whether the batsman is standing be it inside or outside the crease, especially if it is a matter of inches either side of the line, so the shy at the stumps can be a "throw and hope". As I say, Carey threw the ball as soon as he gathered it. We can assume that this was because he had seen Bairstow do the same thing for the previous balls in the over but that is, once again, irrelevant because he did not wait to throw the ball until such time as Bairstow had left the crease.
The argument about the Umpire getting the cap out is also irrelevant if one considers, again, that Bairstow had done exactly the same thing for the other balls in the over. The cap removal wasn't Bairstow's signal for him to leave his crease on those other occasions and it wasn't for the final ball either because, in each and every case, Bairstow was unilaterally deciding that the ball was dead - in that over he didn't actually once look back at where the ball was which I find, amazing because that is what you are meant to do in coming to an agreement with the fielding side that the ball is dead. You look to see if the keeper has released the ball to another fielder. Equally, tapping your bat does not make you in any more than doing so with the keeper standing back or standing up. Otherwise every batsman could just do so and shout "in".
Bairstow was dozy but also demonstrated his ignorance so far as the Laws are concerned. We've seen footage of him attempting to stump, standing back, the Aussies and in his head that's OK because the batsman might be standing out of his crease. Going for a walk before the ball is dead is exactly the same thing for the reasons I've set out above and it is not for him to decide when the ball is dead.
Having said all of the above, I still come back to this one thing. Why are people getting their knickers in a twist over this incident when it wasn't the reason we lost two Tests? Because it helps to hate the Aussies more or because they really do feel that it was the defining moment in this Test? I'm sure that the Aussies could argue the same thing about Starc's catch because he had both hands around the ball at the time the catch was taken . But he did not have control of the ball as defined by the Laws - and this is, as has been suggested, being looked at because in that situation it is dangerous, when moving at that speed, to brace yourself for a fall with your wrist pointing down because that can cause serious damage. But the current Law is that if you ground the ball on falling it is "not out". The Aussies had to suck that up. And we have to suck up the fact that Bairstow was out and we have far bigger issues to resolve if we are going to win back the Ashes.
Obviously Bairstow was dozy for wandering outside his crease before the ball was dead but there is clearly a difference between someone batting outside their crease - they are only doing so to gain an advantage - and someone being a bit hasty in believing the ball is dead and going for a wander a bit early.
The difference being Bairstow wasn't trying to gain any form of advantage.
Was it stupid - yes.
Is it out by the laws - yes.
Is it one of the situations where the spirit of the game is relevant - also yes. Even more so than the usual situations such as a Mankad because of the point about gaining advantage
Waiting for the batsman to do that is equally as bad to me. But it is within the Laws of the game. It's just that we see more of those that we think that it is acceptable and what Carey did isn't.1 -
completely agree, they seemed bewildered and sent it upstairs for that reason. I think they also thought this was an opportunity for cummins to withdraw the appeal.kinveachyaddick said:
Agree. I think the umpires were at fault. No idea why they sent the decision up to the third umpire - Stevie Wonder could see that Bairstow was out of his ground. They should have wondered over to each other, and conferred on whether in their opinion the ball was dead. If they both thought it was then not out - tell Cummins it was over. If they agreed that technically it wasn't dead, ask Cummins if he'd like to withdraw his appeal. Real abdication of responsibility from the pair of them.Cafc43v3r said:
Did they use DRS for Crawley and Bairstow in the first test when they were well out?Addick Addict said:
Then the Umpires can't give it out. But the question is irrelevant because there is DRS. That is the purpose of DRS and it is used for every single stumping too.Cafc43v3r said:
So I'll ask a different question, what would have happened if there was no DRS?North Lower Neil said:
They didn't see it - both were looking down, one to get a cap, the other just because he thought the ball had been done, I guessCafc43v3r said:The big question I have is why did neither of the on field umpires give it out? He was "out" by a mile.
They'd have assumed it was thrown in by the wicketkeeper etc, but you can't give what you didn't actually see.
Bairstow was at least a yard out the fact that the square leg umpire was walking away and not looking, he only turned his head once the ball hit the stumps, suggests he believed the ball to be dead as well?
For what it's worth I don't think the Australians did anything wrong but I can also see that Bairstow AND the umpires belived the ball was dead.
Poor from Bairstow and very ordinary from the umpires though.1 -
that would completely remove byes from the game, no? When you play and miss you assume the ball has gone through to the keeper, the non striker then usually takes a moment to realise the ball has trickled away by which time the striker has completed his stroke and made their ground.Leuth said:A simple law change would solve this. Once the batter has completed their stroke and has made their ground, and is clearly not attempting a run, no run out or stumping is possible from then on0 - Sponsored links:
-
It will be Dan Lawrence at 3 lfl. Unfortunately.kentaddick said:
should mean foakes getting a call and bairstow pushed up the order. Who can bat 3?JohnBoyUK said:Pope OUT for the remaining 3 tests. Needs surgery on dislocated shoulder.
0 -
kentaddick said:
should mean foakes getting a call and bairstow pushed up the order. Who can bat 3?JohnBoyUK said:Pope OUT for the remaining 3 tests. Needs surgery on dislocated shoulder.
Might see Brook at three although that wouldn't be ideal if he's walking at at 7-1 or something and attacking everything from ball 1.0 -
thanks @ch@Chizz for clarifying they didn't break the spirit thenChizz said:MrOneLung said:Been searching online, but cannot find where the laws re Spirit of Cricket are listed
These are highly trained professionals - if there was a spirit of cricket they would be having a lunchtime beer or two with the oppo."Cricket owes much of its appeal and enjoyment to the fact that it should be played not only according to the Laws, but also within the Spirit of Cricket. The major responsibility for ensuring fair play rests with the captains, but extends to all players, match officials and, especially in junior cricket, teachers, coaches and parents.
Respect is central to the Spirit of Cricket.
Respect your captain, team-mates, opponents and the authority of the umpires.
Play hard and play fair.
Accept the umpire’s decision.
Create a positive atmosphere by your own conduct, and encourage others to do likewise.
Show self-discipline, even when things go against you.
Congratulate the opposition on their successes, and enjoy those of your own team.
Thank the officials and your opposition at the end of the match, whatever the result.
Cricket is an exciting game that encourages leadership, friendship and teamwork, which brings together people from different nationalities, cultures and religions, especially when played within the Spirit of Cricket".
It's the preamble to the Laws of Cricket.
0 -
Apparently they're going no replacement for Pope so that'll be Dan Lawrence in the side then.0
-
Well said.Addick Addict said:Whether the keeper is standing up or standing back is irrelevant to the argument. If the batsman walks out of the crease as soon as the keeper takes the ball standing up and the keeper takes the bails off, that that is out. That is all that Carey did standing back. There was no delay in the attempted stumping. In fact, standing that far back a keeper simply cannot actually see exactly whether the batsman is standing be it inside or outside the crease, especially if it is a matter of inches either side of the line, so the shy at the stumps can be a "throw and hope". As I say, Carey threw the ball as soon as he gathered it. We can assume that this was because he had seen Bairstow do the same thing for the previous balls in the over but that is, once again, irrelevant because he did not wait to throw the ball until such time as Bairstow had left the crease.
The argument about the Umpire getting the cap out is also irrelevant if one considers, again, that Bairstow had done exactly the same thing for the other balls in the over. The cap removal wasn't Bairstow's signal for him to leave his crease on those other occasions and it wasn't for the final ball either because, in each and every case, Bairstow was unilaterally deciding that the ball was dead - in that over he didn't actually once look back at where the ball was which I find, amazing because that is what you are meant to do in coming to an agreement with the fielding side that the ball is dead. You look to see if the keeper has released the ball to another fielder. Equally, tapping your bat does not make you in any more than doing so with the keeper standing back or standing up. Otherwise every batsman could just do so and shout "in".
Bairstow was dozy but also demonstrated his ignorance so far as the Laws are concerned. We've seen footage of him attempting to stump, standing back, the Aussies and in his head that's OK because the batsman might be standing out of his crease. Going for a walk before the ball is dead is exactly the same thing for the reasons I've set out above and it is not for him to decide when the ball is dead.
Having said all of the above, I still come back to this one thing. Why are people getting their knickers in a twist over this incident when it wasn't the reason we lost two Tests? Because it helps to hate the Aussies more or because they really do feel that it was the defining moment in this Test? I'm sure that the Aussies could argue the same thing about Starc's catch because he had both hands around the ball at the time the catch was taken . But he did not have control of the ball as defined by the Laws - and this is, as has been suggested, being looked at because in that situation it is dangerous, when moving at that speed, to brace yourself for a fall with your wrist pointing down because that can cause serious damage. But the current Law is that if you ground the ball on falling it is "not out". The Aussies had to suck that up. And we have to suck up the fact that Bairstow was out and we have far bigger issues to resolve if we are going to win back the Ashes.
The only person at fault is Bairstow.
Not Carey and certainly not Cummings.
The Aussies call us winging poms.
If you dish it out like a fair few of the England team, then you have to learn to take it.2 -
Dan Lawrence is crap i'm sorry. Rather just get Foakes into the side2
-
of all the people to blame carey is not one - he had every right to go for the stumping. Bairstow was a dope for doing it, umpires shirked responsibility and cummins perhaps should've withdrawn the appeal. But Carey was just doing his job.2
-
And also we are making a change to the Laws of the game because one player got himself so in the zone of leaving his crease without looking behind him that he did it for each and every ball. There is a reason that we haven't seen this dismissal before. It's because batsmen look behind them to check firstly that the ball has been taken cleanly and secondly to satisfy themselves that the ball is dead before leaving the crease.kentaddick said:
that would completely remove byes from the game, no? When you play and miss you assume the ball has gone through to the keeper, the non striker then usually takes a moment to realise the ball has trickled away by which time the striker has completed his stroke and made their ground.Leuth said:A simple law change would solve this. Once the batter has completed their stroke and has made their ground, and is clearly not attempting a run, no run out or stumping is possible from then on
0 -
Should mean that but they've said they won't call up a replacement. Which means either Lawrence at 3 or what I would do is Brook at 3 and bring Woakes (or Sam Curran) in at 7 as the all rounder.kentaddick said:
should mean foakes getting a call and bairstow pushed up the order. Who can bat 3?JohnBoyUK said:Pope OUT for the remaining 3 tests. Needs surgery on dislocated shoulder.
Gutted for Popey. Really felt like there was a redemption arc in there for him after the last Ashes down under.1 -
This is absolutely correct and should be borne in mind by every England cricket fan at all times. (Except for those at each of the next three Tests, who should be encouraged to abuse Carey, Cummins, Smith and Warner, mercilessly, before, during and after each day's play).kentaddick said:of all the people to blame carey is not one - he had every right to go for the stumping. Bairstow was a dope for doing it, umpires shirked responsibility and cummins perhaps should've withdrawn the appeal. But Carey was just doing his job.2 - Sponsored links:
-
The damage was already done but it does call into question who and why Pope was made to field. Whilst I have questioned whether he really should have been playing that shot than occupying the crease, I can't help feeling that perhaps it was the shoulder injury that forced him to help the ball round rather than hitting it.cantersaddick said:
Should mean that but they've said they won't call up a replacement. Which means either Lawrence at 3 or what I would do is Brook at 3 and bring Woakes (or Sam Curran) in at 7 as the all rounder.kentaddick said:
should mean foakes getting a call and bairstow pushed up the order. Who can bat 3?JohnBoyUK said:Pope OUT for the remaining 3 tests. Needs surgery on dislocated shoulder.
Gutted for Popey. Really felt like there was a redemption arc in there for him after the last Ashes down under.
https://www.ecb.co.uk/video/3561649/pope-caught-in-the-deep-off-green
0 -
kentaddick said:
should mean foakes getting a call and bairstow pushed up the order. Who can bat 3?JohnBoyUK said:Pope OUT for the remaining 3 tests. Needs surgery on dislocated shoulder.
Absolutely should mean this, it's stubbornness and stupidity to do anything else at this stage.
They won't do it though.0 -
I would put Stokes at 3, he actually has the best defence out of all our batsman bar Root. Obviously they won't.cantersaddick said:
Should mean that but they've said they won't call up a replacement. Which means either Lawrence at 3 or what I would do is Brook at 3 and bring Woakes (or Sam Curran) in at 7 as the all rounder.kentaddick said:
should mean foakes getting a call and bairstow pushed up the order. Who can bat 3?JohnBoyUK said:Pope OUT for the remaining 3 tests. Needs surgery on dislocated shoulder.
Gutted for Popey. Really felt like there was a redemption arc in there for him after the last Ashes down under.
There is so much weather around this weekend I can't see a result.
0 -
It's up to the players and, in particular the captain to ensure the game is played within the Spirit of Cricket. But the preamble itself doesn't go so far as to determine what is and isn't acceptable. The reason it doesn't is, of course, that there are no punishments for not adhering to the Spirit, in the way that there are punishments (penalty runs, losing one's wicket, being no-balled, and so forth) for transgressions of the Laws.MrOneLung said:
thanks @ch@Chizz for clarifying they didn't break the spirit thenChizz said:MrOneLung said:Been searching online, but cannot find where the laws re Spirit of Cricket are listed
These are highly trained professionals - if there was a spirit of cricket they would be having a lunchtime beer or two with the oppo."Cricket owes much of its appeal and enjoyment to the fact that it should be played not only according to the Laws, but also within the Spirit of Cricket. The major responsibility for ensuring fair play rests with the captains, but extends to all players, match officials and, especially in junior cricket, teachers, coaches and parents.
Respect is central to the Spirit of Cricket.
Respect your captain, team-mates, opponents and the authority of the umpires.
Play hard and play fair.
Accept the umpire’s decision.
Create a positive atmosphere by your own conduct, and encourage others to do likewise.
Show self-discipline, even when things go against you.
Congratulate the opposition on their successes, and enjoy those of your own team.
Thank the officials and your opposition at the end of the match, whatever the result.
Cricket is an exciting game that encourages leadership, friendship and teamwork, which brings together people from different nationalities, cultures and religions, especially when played within the Spirit of Cricket".
It's the preamble to the Laws of Cricket.
Therefore it falls on the captains to determine what actions are within the Spirit. Dhoni took the right decision in 2011. It's up to Cummins to determine whether his (non) action falls within or without the Spirit. But Cummins - or any other captain - cannot complain if others have a different interpretation to the Spirit than he does.
I think it's outside the Spirit of Cricket to effect a dismissal in the way in which Carey did. Because I don't think it was an example of "fair" play and I don't think it showed respect.
It wasn't unique in that way during the match. There are other events which transgressed the Spirit much further (Starc claiming to have caught the ball he used as a hand-held skateboard; players stopping to "exchange views" with Members; some might even question why Pope was forced to field, yet Lyon had a substitute acting as a close catcher).
The Spirit of Cricket should really be used to highlight, encourage and celebrate greatness and excellence in players' performances. But I bet most people will forget who was "man of the match" at the 2023 Lord's Ashes Test, before they forget "the incident".2 -
Forecast for Edgbaston was worse than the current one for Leeds, it mostly changed and they only lost 2 or 3 sessions.Cafc43v3r said:
I would put Stokes at 3, he actually has the best defence out of all our batsman bar Root. Obviously they won't.cantersaddick said:
Should mean that but they've said they won't call up a replacement. Which means either Lawrence at 3 or what I would do is Brook at 3 and bring Woakes (or Sam Curran) in at 7 as the all rounder.kentaddick said:
should mean foakes getting a call and bairstow pushed up the order. Who can bat 3?JohnBoyUK said:Pope OUT for the remaining 3 tests. Needs surgery on dislocated shoulder.
Gutted for Popey. Really felt like there was a redemption arc in there for him after the last Ashes down under.
There is so much weather around this weekend I can't see a result.0 -
I live about 5 miles from Headingley and the forecast has been spot on the last few weeks, the weather on Saturday looks awful.North Lower Neil said:
Forecast for Edgbaston was worse than the current one for Leeds, it mostly changed and they only lost 2 or 3 sessions.Cafc43v3r said:
I would put Stokes at 3, he actually has the best defence out of all our batsman bar Root. Obviously they won't.cantersaddick said:
Should mean that but they've said they won't call up a replacement. Which means either Lawrence at 3 or what I would do is Brook at 3 and bring Woakes (or Sam Curran) in at 7 as the all rounder.kentaddick said:
should mean foakes getting a call and bairstow pushed up the order. Who can bat 3?JohnBoyUK said:Pope OUT for the remaining 3 tests. Needs surgery on dislocated shoulder.
Gutted for Popey. Really felt like there was a redemption arc in there for him after the last Ashes down under.
There is so much weather around this weekend I can't see a result.0 -
I can't help thinking that we have got ourselves in a right "mucky fuddle" having made that original Foakes decision. Bringing Foakes back now would send the message to Bairstow that either his keeping has not been good enough or that Foakes is the better keeper. And the truth is both but it's not a message that McCullum/Stokes want to be delivering at this stage anyway especially as Bairstow has been mucked apart in the past so far as having the gloves is concerned. Whereas had Foakes been keeping all along, as he should have been, we wouldn't have this issue right now and the results of both Tests might have been different.
1 -
But Bairstow's record without the gloves is so much better. They could surely use that as reasoning to justify it as good for him and the side.Addick Addict said:I can't help thinking that we have got ourselves in a right "mucky fuddle" having made that original Foakes decision. Bringing Foakes back now would send the message to Bairstow that either his keeping has not been good enough or that Foakes is the better keeper. And the truth is both but it's not a message that McCullum/Stokes want to be delivering at this stage anyway especially as Bairstow has been mucked apart in the past so far as having the gloves is concerned. Whereas had Foakes been keeping all along, as he should have been, we wouldn't have this issue right now and the results of both Tests might have been different.1 -
We are looking, Desperate Dan0
-
Isnt Pope the back up wicket keeper in the squad?
Who else can keep if Bairstow gets a knock and
Foakes doesnt get the call?1
