on a positive note, really good to see Ben Duckett proving he is not just a sub continent flat track run machine .. two terrific innings in this test .. he will be gutted to miss out on a Lords ton .. out to terrible shots, of which he played very few, in both innings
Not a bad fielder either took a couple of decent catches.
The TMS box pretty much all disagreed with the actions of the Aussies, even Glen McGrath sounded unsure (whereas he had been really annoyed about the Starc catch being ruled out).
By contrast the Sky commentators, from what I've read, seemed to accept it was ok?
on a positive note, really good to see Ben Duckett proving he is not just a sub continent flat track run machine .. two terrific innings in this test .. he will be gutted to miss out on a Lords ton .. out to terrible shots, of which he played very few, in both innings
Not a bad fielder either took a couple of decent catches.
Not heard any of the post match interviews but Wish they’d stop moaning about the stumping - I bet Bairstow had been spotted wandering off previously and Aussies were acting on a plan.
Also, Broad is on record as saying he wouldn’t walk if he nicked it and was not given out so let’s not play the hard done by card.
That said, I would us to do a Mankad to Steve Smith on the next game
When smith does his over reacting practice shots after the ball has beaten him, is he in his crease? I'm sure England will looking closely
i agree, but I'm glad stoked said what he did (we wouldn't want to win in that way)
I really hope the England analysts (and we employ enough of them) are watching for any Aussies who wander out of their crease...
I'd love if we got one that way and then withdrew the appeal, which Stokes said we would. That would really humiliate them and show them up for the poor sportsmen they continue to be. Glad we don't have their reputation, but it does give them an us against everyone else mentality which fires them up unfortunately.
This. Keep the moral high ground. Show them how often we could do the same to them but withdraw the appeal each time, threaten the mankad every over but never actually do it. Show them up as the cheating scumbags they are
on a positive note, really good to see Ben Duckett proving he is not just a sub continent flat track run machine .. two terrific innings in this test .. he will be gutted to miss out on a Lords ton .. out to terrible shots, of which he played very few, in both innings
Not a bad fielder either took a couple of decent catches.
he sure did .. (good to hear from you .. all OK?)
Good thanks Lincs, you? Needed bit of a close season time out especially from the all takeover going’s on.
on a positive note, really good to see Ben Duckett proving he is not just a sub continent flat track run machine .. two terrific innings in this test .. he will be gutted to miss out on a Lords ton .. out to terrible shots, of which he played very few, in both innings
Not a bad fielder either took a couple of decent catches.
he sure did .. (good to hear from you .. all OK?)
Good thanks Lincs, you? Needed bit of a close season time out especially from the all takeover going’s on.
still staggering about my friend, thank you, .. looking forward to the new season, though will not be going to many games .. the price of everything from petrol to hotels to EVERYTHING lol .. will be at the Valley for the Os game and then we will see .. all the best
By the laws of the game the Bairstow delivery was fine, to be honest he was an idiot for continuously wandering straight off his crease. But to do it and appeal screams Mankad to me, or even Chappell bowling under arm, within the laws but not right.
I always thought it was Whinging Poms they used to call us but this series is very much proving its whinging Aussies.
Not least the 2 examples yesterday
Taylor on sky comms yesterday saying the umpires should intervene and tell the bowlers they cant bowl the short ball tactic because it was dangerous and wasn't fair even though the Aussies started doing it first and more and 15mph faster.
And then the reaction to the Starc non-catch is ridiculous.
Get over it children you're winning.
Well well well. Rattled by the rhubarb and Custard brigade!!
I always thought it was Whinging Poms they used to call us but this series is very much proving its whinging Aussies.
Not least the 2 examples yesterday
Taylor on sky comms yesterday saying the umpires should intervene and tell the bowlers they cant bowl the short ball tactic because it was dangerous and wasn't fair even though the Aussies started doing it first and more and 15mph faster.
And then the reaction to the Starc non-catch is ridiculous.
Get over it children you're winning.
Well well well. Rattled by the rhubarb and Custard brigade!!
Those scary MCC ultras, the police should do something about them their violence is getting out of hand
This is much the same Australian side that told Jimmy Anderson to prepare for a broken arm when he came out to bat, that made disparaging comments about Johnny Bairstow’s father. Sandpapered a ball to try to gain an advantage and moan like spoilt little children when things go against them. In short they’re cunts and we should treat them exactly like that from now on. Throw down their stumps when they step out of the crease, accidentally hit the batsmen with the ball when running between the wickets and give them plenty of hostile bowling. We have for years had to endure hostile conditions when over there we should give it back.
5 days hard boozing at Lord’s , never watched as much cricket in my life , too enthralled to leave seat . Gotta love Test cricket , got to hate those cheating Aussie pricks , the ‘Mancunt’ invented my Carey at Lords 2nd July 2023 .
Interesting that the Bairstow incident has been compared to the 1981 Trevor Chappell underarm last ball in the third ODI of the Benson and Hedges World Series at the MCG. Richie Benaud described it as “one of the worst things I have ever seen on a cricket field”. I wonder what he would have thought of his countryman Carey today.
It’s been suggested that the incident resulted in a huge boost for cricket (for all the wrong reasons) in NZ with all the controversy and hatred for our foe over the ditch.
Did Robinson have them quaking in their boots when he told them that we would give them a good hiding? Did Khawaja collapse like a deck of cards when he was told to "fuck off, you fucking prick" or go on to become the leading scorer in the Series? Did all their "three number 11s" refuse to come out to bat and did one of those use the excuse that he had pulled his calf muscle not to do so? Did they wither on hearing that prediction from Crawley that we would win by 150 runs? If for one minute, we believe that the Aussies are the least bit concerned about some boos then we are kidding ourselves. If you go at them then they will come back at you. They couldn't care less who you are. Be it Botham threatening to glass them or an MCC Member at Lord's calling you a cheat.
We won the toss and had, overall, much the playing better conditions in both matches. Here we had a chance against an attack bereft of their world class spinner but failed to grind their quicks into the ground. We did not lose both of these matches because of one legitimate dismissal when Bairstow was asleep at the wheel in the same way as de Grandhomme was when Pope claimed his wicket. Were both unsporting or just Bairstow's wicket? Equally, did we complain when Broad smashed the ball into slip's hands off Ashton Agar and chose not to walk? Remember that phrase "spirit of the game". It's not in the "spirit of the game" when you've hit it straight to a fielder and are clearly caught to walk? How about if we say that no one should walk if they are caught wherever the catch is taken? That will speed the game up won't it?
Let's take a look at this but, in doing so, remember that Carey did throw the ball as soon as he caught it and not after Bairstow walked out of his crease:
Bairstow tried doing so at Warner as well as Labuschagne. So twice at least. Both may or may not have been batting outside their crease but that is irrelevant. In both instances of the ball being thrown the ball was still live. The difference is that Bairstow unilaterally decided it was dead without looking back at the keeper as to where the ball was.
How about this one from Foakes? Balbirnie probably thought that the ball was dead because he could see that the ball was nestled in Foakes' gloves so he was attempting to get up. Opportunistic from Foakes but within the Law and the "spirit of the game"? Again, people talk about speeding up the game so how long should Balbirnie have waited before moving?
Or what about Stewart's stumping of Lara? Again, his effort at stumping Lara is not as soon as he has the ball in his hands. Unlike Carey's attempt. Remember that "spirit of the game" that we keep carping on about:
The anger at Bairstow's dismissal is pure deflection. We lost because, at important stages of those games, we did not adapt enough to play the smartest of cricket. I hope we learn from that and that most of our batsmen and bowlers turn up at Headingley and we play our best cricket for the duration because if we do then we have a good chance. I was one of a few on here who predicted 2-2 and that is still possible.
One final thing. My son, Seb, actually knows Alex Carey from his time in Adelaide where he met him and says that he is one of the nicest blokes both on and off the pitch. Tonight Seb tells me that Carey has had over 500 comments calling him a cheat and more on his Instagram - including one below a picture of Carey with his wife and two kids taken on 21st June upon their arrival in England. "You'll always be remembered for that. So foolish putting your family at risk because you have to cheat." It's OK to threaten his family is it. Anything goes after all. Remember Mourinho waiting for Anthony Taylor in the car park. Remember the Roma fans intimidating Taylor and his family at the airport? What? That was wrong? Because Taylor is English or because it's wrong? It seems that some people won't be happy until something happens to Carey at the very least and at the worst to one of his kids. Is that really what sport has come to?
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.
if Bairstow had done the same to Carey would we be chuntering as much? i doubt it.
No, because the appeal would have been withdrawn. Stokes said so. He doesn't strike me as a liar.
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.
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.
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.
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.
if Bairstow had done the same to Carey would we be chuntering as much? i doubt it.
No, because the appeal would have been withdrawn. Stokes said so. He doesn't strike me as a liar.
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.
Of course it bothers them when Carey's kids are being threatened because of the actions of a player totally within the Laws of the Game and a stupid Bairstow not knowing them or just being plain asleep. Stokes is hardly going to hang Bairstow out to dry is he? The whole thing just deflects from the fact that we didn't play good enough cricket at certain times of these two matches. It bothers them but, as I've pointed out from the noises of Robinson and Crawley, it will just make them come back harder.
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.
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.
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.
I'll rephrase it. Bairstow thought the ball was dead. Obviously incorrectly, but that's completely different from the Marnus example.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'll rephrase it. Bairstow thought the ball was dead. Obviously incorrectly, but that's completely different from the Marnus example.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
I'll rephrase it. Bairstow thought the ball was dead. Obviously incorrectly, but that's completely different from the Marnus example.
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.
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?
The opposition captain can decide to withdraw an appeal. That is something which has happened with most previous examples of this sort of incident, e.g. ones where England have been both the sinners and the sinned against.
All sports have unofficial levels of acceptable "gamesmanship". In football, "making the most of contact" to win a penalty is considered normal, whereas diving when you haven't been touched isn't considered acceptable. And pretending you've been hurt to get a player sent off is even worse.
It's perfectly normal for cricketers to stand their ground, even if they've nicked it. Similarly time wasting to reduce the number overs left in the day/session.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Aussies (other than Gilchrist) never walk, so their whinging about Broad was blatant hypocrisy.
If Smith had nicked the ball, and it wasn't given and England either didn't use a review or had burned them already, nobody would have blamed Smith for not walking or starting haranguing the Aussie team, the situations aren't remotely comparable. Indeed all of the blame would have been aimed at England for bad reviewing.
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.
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.
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.
I'll rephrase it. Bairstow thought the ball was dead. Obviously incorrectly, but that's completely different from the Marnus example.
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.
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?
The opposition captain can decide to withdraw an appeal. That is something which has happened with most previous examples of this sort of incident, e.g. ones where England have been both the sinners and the sinned against.
All sports have unofficial levels of acceptable "gamesmanship". In football, "making the most of contact" to win a penalty is considered normal, whereas diving when you haven't been touched isn't considered acceptable. And pretending you've been hurt to get a player sent off is even worse.
It's perfectly normal for cricketers to stand their ground, even if they've nicked it. Similarly time wasting to reduce the number overs left in the day/session.
So had Carey missed the stumps and Stokes had called Bairstow though for a run, would that have been within the "spirit of the game"? Either the ball was dead or it wasn't. And there are acceptable levels for not walking within the game. But middling the ball to a fielder and not walking is not one of them unless there is a doubt as to whether the fielder caught it cleanly. And as I say, had that been Smith who edged it to slip instead of Broad, English social media would have been rampant with calls of cheat and no doubt threats to Smith's family too.
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.
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.
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.
I'll rephrase it. Bairstow thought the ball was dead. Obviously incorrectly, but that's completely different from the Marnus example.
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.
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?
The opposition captain can decide to withdraw an appeal. That is something which has happened with most previous examples of this sort of incident, e.g. ones where England have been both the sinners and the sinned against.
All sports have unofficial levels of acceptable "gamesmanship". In football, "making the most of contact" to win a penalty is considered normal, whereas diving when you haven't been touched isn't considered acceptable. And pretending you've been hurt to get a player sent off is even worse.
It's perfectly normal for cricketers to stand their ground, even if they've nicked it. Similarly time wasting to reduce the number overs left in the day/session.
So had Carey missed the stumps and Stokes had called Bairstow though for a run, would that have been within the "spirit of the game"? Either the ball was dead or it wasn't. And there are acceptable levels for not walking within the game. But middling the ball to a fielder and not walking is not one of them unless there is a doubt as to whether the fielder caught it cleanly. And as I say, had that been Smith who edged it to slip instead of Broad, English social media would have been rampant with calls of cheat and no doubt threats to Smith's family too.
As I said in my previous comment, that wouldn't have happened, as it's a completely different situation. He would have been called a lucky bastard or got some "pantomime booing" but none of the anger today's incident caused.
don't know much about cricket but to use a football analogy, a Charlton player is jostling with the opposition player on the touchline and the Charlton player stops believing the ball to have gone out of play and appeals for a throw. The opposition player carries on, goes down the wing, crosses the ball and the striker scores. The linesman didn't signal for a throw. The Charlton player ends up looking like a chump. Should the opposition player not have continued although within his rights to do so?
As I say I don't know much about cricket, even less about the actual laws, but sounds to me that the England batsman was at fault here. Spirit of the game my arse. They have come here to win a test series, not their fault we don't know the laws of the game we are playing.
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.
Comments
By contrast the Sky commentators, from what I've read, seemed to accept it was ok?
Gotta love Test cricket , got to hate those cheating Aussie pricks , the ‘Mancunt’ invented my Carey at Lords 2nd July 2023 .
We won the toss and had, overall, much the playing better conditions in both matches. Here we had a chance against an attack bereft of their world class spinner but failed to grind their quicks into the ground. We did not lose both of these matches because of one legitimate dismissal when Bairstow was asleep at the wheel in the same way as de Grandhomme was when Pope claimed his wicket. Were both unsporting or just Bairstow's wicket? Equally, did we complain when Broad smashed the ball into slip's hands off Ashton Agar and chose not to walk? Remember that phrase "spirit of the game". It's not in the "spirit of the game" when you've hit it straight to a fielder and are clearly caught to walk? How about if we say that no one should walk if they are caught wherever the catch is taken? That will speed the game up won't it?
Let's take a look at this but, in doing so, remember that Carey did throw the ball as soon as he caught it and not after Bairstow walked out of his crease:
Bairstow tried doing so at Warner as well as Labuschagne. So twice at least. Both may or may not have been batting outside their crease but that is irrelevant. In both instances of the ball being thrown the ball was still live. The difference is that Bairstow unilaterally decided it was dead without looking back at the keeper as to where the ball was.
How about this one from Foakes? Balbirnie probably thought that the ball was dead because he could see that the ball was nestled in Foakes' gloves so he was attempting to get up. Opportunistic from Foakes but within the Law and the "spirit of the game"? Again, people talk about speeding up the game so how long should Balbirnie have waited before moving?
Or what about Stewart's stumping of Lara? Again, his effort at stumping Lara is not as soon as he has the ball in his hands. Unlike Carey's attempt. Remember that "spirit of the game" that we keep carping on about:
The anger at Bairstow's dismissal is pure deflection. We lost because, at important stages of those games, we did not adapt enough to play the smartest of cricket. I hope we learn from that and that most of our batsmen and bowlers turn up at Headingley and we play our best cricket for the duration because if we do then we have a good chance. I was one of a few on here who predicted 2-2 and that is still possible.
One final thing. My son, Seb, actually knows Alex Carey from his time in Adelaide where he met him and says that he is one of the nicest blokes both on and off the pitch. Tonight Seb tells me that Carey has had over 500 comments calling him a cheat and more on his Instagram - including one below a picture of Carey with his wife and two kids taken on 21st June upon their arrival in England. "You'll always be remembered for that. So foolish putting your family at risk because you have to cheat." It's OK to threaten his family is it. Anything goes after all. Remember Mourinho waiting for Anthony Taylor in the car park. Remember the Roma fans intimidating Taylor and his family at the airport? What? That was wrong? Because Taylor is English or because it's wrong? It seems that some people won't be happy until something happens to Carey at the very least and at the worst to one of his kids. Is that really what sport has come to?
Balbirnie was still "within his stroke" when his back leg slightly raised, ditto Lara.
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.
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.
All sports have unofficial levels of acceptable "gamesmanship". In football, "making the most of contact" to win a penalty is considered normal, whereas diving when you haven't been touched isn't considered acceptable. And pretending you've been hurt to get a player sent off is even worse.
It's perfectly normal for cricketers to stand their ground, even if they've nicked it. Similarly time wasting to reduce the number overs left in the day/session.
If Smith had nicked the ball, and it wasn't given and England either didn't use a review or had burned them already, nobody would have blamed Smith for not walking or starting haranguing the Aussie team, the situations aren't remotely comparable. Indeed all of the blame would have been aimed at England for bad reviewing.
As I say I don't know much about cricket, even less about the actual laws, but sounds to me that the England batsman was at fault here. Spirit of the game my arse. They have come here to win a test series, not their fault we don't know the laws of the game we are playing.
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.