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 Bairstowhad 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.
Disagree.
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
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.
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.
If I remember the Foakes one clearly then again in my view there is an important distinction. A) I dont think he waited anything like 5 seconds probably less than 1 when watched in real time. B ) Balbirnie was still in the action of the follow through of his shot when he lost balance and stepped forward to regain balance and so was out of his crease. As such him being out of his crease was a direct result of his attempted shot and so in my view perfectly valid to wait for that to happen and stump him.
The difference with what Bairstow did is after his "shot" (leave) he was still in his ground, perfectly balanced. He took a look at the crease, gave it a scratch and then tapped his bat before leaving. Yes the timings are probably similar but one was as a direct result of attempting to play the ball and the other has multiple actions/movements since.
In short it wasn't the bowling that caused him to leave his crease.
It's worrying for Pope that he keeps getting these shoulder injuries when fielding. You can't hide in the field, you can't not dive for the ball.
And farcical that Pope was forced to field in the second innings, thus making it worse, but allowed to bat at Number 3 because it was judged an external injury.
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?
Duckett is also a keeper. Though less than ideal having an opener keep. Billings is the only other keeper who has been used in tests in the last couple years but his form has been worse than shocking this year.
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.
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.
They couldn't find that reason before the Series and for that reason they aren't going to be doing it right now. I'm not saying that they won't come to that conclusion but to do so after just two Tests they probably think that will send the wrong message to Bairstow who they seem less worried about upsetting than Foakes who must be fuming.
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 Bairstowhad 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.
Disagree.
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
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.
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.
If I remember the Foakes one clearly then again in my view there is an important distinction. A) I dont think he waited anything like 5 seconds probably less than 1 when watched in real time. B ) Balbirnie was still in the action of the follow through of his shot when he lost balance and stepped forward to regain balance and so was out of his crease. As such him being out of his crease was a direct result of his attempted shot and so in my view perfectly valid to wait for that to happen and stump him.
The difference with what Bairstow did is after his "shot" (leave) he was still in his ground, perfectly balanced. He took a look at the crease, gave it a scratch and then tapped his bat before leaving. Yes the timings are probably similar but one was as a direct result of attempting to play the ball and the other has multiple actions/movements since.
In short it wasn't the bowling that caused him to leave his crease.
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 Bairstowhad 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.
Disagree.
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
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.
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.
If I remember the Foakes one clearly then again in my view there is an important distinction. A) I dont think he waited anything like 5 seconds probably less than 1 when watched in real time. B ) Balbirnie was still in the action of the follow through of his shot when he lost balance and stepped forward to regain balance and so was out of his crease. As such him being out of his crease was a direct result of his attempted shot and so in my view perfectly valid to wait for that to happen and stump him.
The difference with what Bairstow did is after his "shot" (leave) he was still in his ground, perfectly balanced. He took a look at the crease, gave it a scratch and then tapped his bat before leaving. Yes the timings are probably similar but one was as a direct result of attempting to play the ball and the other has multiple actions/movements since.
In short it wasn't the bowling that caused him to leave his crease.
Here's the Balbirnie incident, make your own minds up.
I stand by what I said, less than half a second delay and he was off balance as a result of the shot he played at the ball. That's what caused him to leave his ground. He was under no illusion that the ball was dead nor that over had been called. Completely different situation IMO.
The Pope injury might have solved one of England's selection problem .. don't bring in Lawrence who i m o is not quite good enough to worry the Aussies .. bring n Ali, Wood and Woakes for Pope, Robinson and Anderson .. gives us 2 fast bowlers and strengthens the middle order .. Root at 3, Ali at 7, Baistow 6, Stokes 5 Woakes at 8 with Broad at 9, his proper place .. could be said that this weakens the batting .. we will still have 7 proper batsmen IF Ali does the right thing and plays 'sensibly' if required .. We need to attack to stand any chance of getting back in this series .. and that means selecting for lots of bowling options
The Pope injury might have solved one of England's selection problem .. don't bring in Lawrence who i m o is not quite good enough to worry the Aussies .. bring n Ali, Wood and Woakes for Pope, Robinson and Anderson .. gives us 2 fast bowlers and strengthens the middle order .. Root at 3, Ali at 7, Baistow 6, Stokes 5 Woakes at 8 with Broad at 9, his proper place .. could be said that this weakens the batting .. we will still have 7 proper batsmen IF Ali does the right thing and plays 'sensibly' if required .. We need to attack to stand any chance of getting back in this series .. and that means selecting for lots of bowling options
Duckett Crawley Brook Root Bairstow Stokes Moeen Woakes (I'm gonna keep banging the Sam Curran drum even tho he's not in the squad) Broad Wood Tongue
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.
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.
They couldn't find that reason before the Series and for that reason they aren't going to be doing it right now. I'm not saying that they won't come to that conclusion but to do so after just two Tests they probably think that will send the wrong message to Bairstow who they seem less worried about upsetting than Foakes who must be fuming.
I could understand (if not agree with) them wanting to get Bairstow back in, and not wanting to drop say Brook so going with Foakes as the option to do so.
But now there's another spot, you get your world class keeper back in. It's only a year since Stokes said “We’re not in the position to not select world-class players at the moment,” said Stokes. “Ben is the best wicketkeeper in the world."
The Pope injury might have solved one of England's selection problem .. don't bring in Lawrence who i m o is not quite good enough to worry the Aussies .. bring n Ali, Wood and Woakes for Pope, Robinson and Anderson .. gives us 2 fast bowlers and strengthens the middle order .. Root at 3, Ali at 7, Baistow 6, Stokes 5 Woakes at 8 with Broad at 9, his proper place .. could be said that this weakens the batting .. we will still have 7 proper batsmen IF Ali does the right thing and plays 'sensibly' if required .. We need to attack to stand any chance of getting back in this series .. and that means selecting for lots of bowling options
Duckett Crawley Brook Root Bairstow Stokes Moeen Woakes (I'm gonna keep banging the Sam Curran drum even tho he's not in the squad) Broad Wood Tongue
Looks a strong side to me.
yep, wouldn't be surprised if stokes plays himself as a specialist batsman.
The main reason a keeper stands up is to put pressure on where the batsmen is standing in his crease and to affect how the batsman wants to play a shot , does he want a long stride to counteract the spin / swing . That batsmen knows the keeper is there for that exact reason and will try not to overbalance / step our of crease etc
Bairstows is completely different to the above scenario , it was a snide move, yes it worked .
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 Bairstowhad 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.
Disagree.
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
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.
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.
If I remember the Foakes one clearly then again in my view there is an important distinction. A) I dont think he waited anything like 5 seconds probably less than 1 when watched in real time. B ) Balbirnie was still in the action of the follow through of his shot when he lost balance and stepped forward to regain balance and so was out of his crease. As such him being out of his crease was a direct result of his attempted shot and so in my view perfectly valid to wait for that to happen and stump him.
The difference with what Bairstow did is after his "shot" (leave) he was still in his ground, perfectly balanced. He took a look at the crease, gave it a scratch and then tapped his bat before leaving. Yes the timings are probably similar but one was as a direct result of attempting to play the ball and the other has multiple actions/movements since.
In short it wasn't the bowling that caused him to leave his crease.
Here's the Balbirnie incident, make your own minds up.
The stroke was completed and Balbirnie was not seeking to gain an advantage. He was not "in the action of the follow through of his shot". There is a distinct gap between when he completes the shot with his hands raised and still before that secondary movement. Balbirnie had even looked round to check that the ball was in Foakes' hands and saw that it was pressed against the stumps so presumably thought that the ball was dead too. Foakes waited for Balbirnie to "leave" the crease and there is a three second gap between Foakes receiving the ball and attempting the stumping. Carey did not wait to see what Bairstow was doing and threw the ball before Bairstow left the crease. Had Bairstow been looking behind him as he should have done then he would not have left the crease. But he wasn't looking behind him, as he should have been, for any of the balls he faced in that over and did the very same thing in wandering out of his crease.
This is what the Ireland skipper, Porterfield, said of the Balbirnie incident:
"You can say it was great wicketkeeping or you can say it's a bit of a grey area of 'when is the ball dead?'" Porterfield said. "The ball was pretty much dead. The batsman wasn't going anywhere or over-balanced. The keeper has waited for three or four seconds. If we do that all day, it's going be a pretty long game. How long do you wait? We'll be playing 15-hour games if you wait that long."
That does rather sound like us complaining doesn't it?
Interestingly both Steve James and Derek Pringle have mentioned how Bairstow's type of dismissal used to be commonplace. Pringle said this:
When I played top-level cricket, nobody ever ‘Mankadded’ anyone (ran them out backing up) a now commonplace act, yet players were occasionally stumped as Bairstow was. Indeed, the potential perils of leaving your ground without permission of the fielding side were drilled into you. It’s an unusual dismissal for sure but not unknown, and one Bairstow has tried to effect himself when keeping wicket. He can have no complaints.
The main reason a keeper stands up is to put pressure on where the batsmen is standing in his crease and to affect how the batsman wants to play a shot , does he want a long stride to counteract the spin / swing . That batsmen knows the keeper is there for that exact reason and will try not to overbalance / step our of crease etc
Bairstows is completely different to the above scenario , it was a snide move, yes it worked .
And I would argue that Foakes' stumping of Balbirnie was a snide movement for the reasons I've said and that worked too.
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.
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.
They couldn't find that reason before the Series and for that reason they aren't going to be doing it right now. I'm not saying that they won't come to that conclusion but to do so after just two Tests they probably think that will send the wrong message to Bairstow who they seem less worried about upsetting than Foakes who must be fuming.
I could understand (if not agree with) them wanting to get Bairstow back in, and not wanting to drop say Brook so going with Foakes as the option to do so.
But now there's another spot, you get your world class keeper back in. It's only a year since Stokes said “We’re not in the position to not select world-class players at the moment,” said Stokes. “Ben is the best wicketkeeper in the world."
That's the trouble. Captains/coaches will only ever say what justifies their decision making at any given time not what doesn't justify it. Because if they did they would have admitted that having Bairstow keeping wicket contributed massively to our defeat in the First Test. And as I say they probably feel that they are better upsetting one player off during this Series (Foakes) than two especially as Bairstow has always wanted the gloves but been denied them on any number of occasions. As I say, I would have had Foakes as one of my first names on the team sheet from the outset.
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.
We have got ourselves in a right mess not just with the keeper but throughout the team. You would never, in a million years, end up with this team (what ever XI they pick) through conventional thinking and selection.
Saying that you either back it 100% or you don't do it at all. The problem with doing it, and losing, is you look silly. If you pull back on the commitment just by 10% do you get in the situation where you can throw it away in the first place?
TBH I don't think we would have won this series what ever team we picked or however we played.
It makes no sense to have Leach as your chosen spinner to do a specific role for the side, and then when he's injured to replace him with Moeen, Ahmed or indeed nobody. It's as if they prefer certain "type of person" in their side, rather than choosing a direct replacement like Dawson, an experienced spinner to hold an end. Plus a decent batsman.
Similarly, last year they chose Foakes in their team, and used Billings as the backup keeper, as he was a direct replacement, but have also gone away from that.
We know the reasons as to why this has happened but it really is disappointing to see the demise of the West Indies. They have failed to qualify for the World Cup having lost to Scotland, Netherlands and Zimbabwe.
Let's take a poll with some very straightforward questions for those that have played Club cricket.
(1) With the keeper standing back would you check to see whether the ball you have left has been safely taken by the keeper and what he then does with it be it to shy at your stumps or pass it to a fielder thereby making the ball "dead"?
Or
(2) With the keeper standing back would you not look at the keeper and just wander out of your crease?
And
if (2) Would you do that for each and every ball in an over, regardless of whether that was the first or last ball?
The big question I have is why did neither of the on field umpires give it out? He was "out" by a mile.
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 guess
They'd have assumed it was thrown in by the wicketkeeper etc, but you can't give what you didn't actually see.
If both umpires thought the ball had been done, should that mean it was done? If they are the umpires and they act as if the ball was dead, surely it's dead?
The big question I have is why did neither of the on field umpires give it out? He was "out" by a mile.
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 guess
They'd have assumed it was thrown in by the wicketkeeper etc, but you can't give what you didn't actually see.
If both umpires thought the ball had been done, should that mean it was done? If they are the umpires and they act as if the ball was dead, surely it's dead?
Just because an umpire reaches for a cap that doesn't make the ball "dead". In this instance and as this was the final ball of the over, the ball is still "live" until "over" is called.
Scotland have just become the first team to beat three full member sides in the tournament namely Ireland, West Indies and Zimbabwe. They have to avoid defeat against the Netherlands on Thursday if they can but I believe a narrow loss might still be enough by virtue of their superior run rate. Sri Lanka have already qualified.
The big question I have is why did neither of the on field umpires give it out? He was "out" by a mile.
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 guess
They'd have assumed it was thrown in by the wicketkeeper etc, but you can't give what you didn't actually see.
If both umpires thought the ball had been done, should that mean it was done? If they are the umpires and they act as if the ball was dead, surely it's dead?
Law 20.1.2 "The ball shall be considered to be dead when it is clear to the bowler’s end umpire that the fielding side and both batters at the wicket have ceased to regard it as in play".
The fielding side (ie at least the wicket-keeper), regarded the ball as being still in play. Therefore the ball was still live.
The call of "Over" should not be made until the ball is dead. But handing a cap to a player, looking at your watch, wandering in from square leg are not signs that the ball is dead. Had the umpire called "over", then it would be reasonable for the batter to argue he thought the ball was dead.
This video sheds lots of light on this. But it also throws up a slightly ambiguous, confusing element, ie Law 20.1.1.1 which states that [a ball is dead when] it is finally settled in the hands of the wicket-keeper or of the bowler. So you could question whether the ball was dead, having settled in the wicket keeper's hands. (Although, please don't!)
The main reason a keeper stands up is to put pressure on where the batsmen is standing in his crease and to affect how the batsman wants to play a shot , does he want a long stride to counteract the spin / swing . That batsmen knows the keeper is there for that exact reason and will try not to overbalance / step our of crease etc
Bairstows is completely different to the above scenario , it was a snide move, yes it worked .
And I would argue that Foakes' stumping of Balbirnie was a snide movement for the reasons I've said and that worked too.
I see it as Balbirnie taking a huge stride down the track to negate the spin and as he goes to regain his balance with his bat he topples and lifts his foot . the advantage the batsmen seemed to gain by the long stride worked against him because he lost control of being in the crease as he tried to get himself back up same position there with keeper holding ball over stumps I’d have expected him to be more careful .
Comments
The difference with what Bairstow did is after his "shot" (leave) he was still in his ground, perfectly balanced. He took a look at the crease, gave it a scratch and then tapped his bat before leaving. Yes the timings are probably similar but one was as a direct result of attempting to play the ball and the other has multiple actions/movements since.
In short it wasn't the bowling that caused him to leave his crease.
And farcical that Pope was forced to field in the second innings, thus making it worse, but allowed to bat at Number 3 because it was judged an external injury.
Here's the Balbirnie incident, make your own minds up.
don't bring in Lawrence who i m o is not quite good enough to worry the Aussies .. bring n Ali, Wood and Woakes for Pope, Robinson and Anderson .. gives us 2 fast bowlers and strengthens the middle order .. Root at 3, Ali at 7, Baistow 6, Stokes 5 Woakes at 8 with Broad at 9, his proper place .. could be said that this weakens the batting .. we will still have 7 proper batsmen IF Ali does the right thing and plays 'sensibly' if required ..
We need to attack to stand any chance of getting back in this series .. and that means selecting for lots of bowling options
Duckett
Crawley
Brook
Root
Bairstow
Stokes
Moeen
Woakes (I'm gonna keep banging the Sam Curran drum even tho he's not in the squad)
Broad
Wood
Tongue
Looks a strong side to me.
But now there's another spot, you get your world class keeper back in. It's only a year since Stokes said “We’re not in the position to not select world-class players at the moment,” said Stokes. “Ben is the best wicketkeeper in the world."
That batsmen knows the keeper is there for that exact reason and will try not to overbalance / step our of crease etc
Bairstows is completely different to the above scenario , it was a snide move, yes it worked .
This is what the Ireland skipper, Porterfield, said of the Balbirnie incident:
"You can say it was great wicketkeeping or you can say it's a bit of a grey area of 'when is the ball dead?'" Porterfield said. "The ball was pretty much dead. The batsman wasn't going anywhere or over-balanced. The keeper has waited for three or four seconds. If we do that all day, it's going be a pretty long game. How long do you wait? We'll be playing 15-hour games if you wait that long."
That does rather sound like us complaining doesn't it?
Interestingly both Steve James and Derek Pringle have mentioned how Bairstow's type of dismissal used to be commonplace. Pringle said this:
When I played top-level cricket, nobody ever ‘Mankadded’ anyone (ran them out backing up) a now commonplace act, yet players were occasionally stumped as Bairstow was. Indeed, the potential perils of leaving your ground without permission of the fielding side were drilled into you. It’s an unusual dismissal for sure but not unknown, and one Bairstow has tried to effect himself when keeping wicket. He can have no complaints.
Saying that you either back it 100% or you don't do it at all. The problem with doing it, and losing, is you look silly. If you pull back on the commitment just by 10% do you get in the situation where you can throw it away in the first place?
TBH I don't think we would have won this series what ever team we picked or however we played.
Similarly, last year they chose Foakes in their team, and used Billings as the backup keeper, as he was a direct replacement, but have also gone away from that.
Law 20.1.2 "The ball shall be considered to be dead when it is clear to the bowler’s end umpire that the fielding side and both batters at the wicket have ceased to regard it as in play".
The call of "Over" should not be made until the ball is dead. But handing a cap to a player, looking at your watch, wandering in from square leg are not signs that the ball is dead. Had the umpire called "over", then it would be reasonable for the batter to argue he thought the ball was dead.
This video sheds lots of light on this. But it also throws up a slightly ambiguous, confusing element, ie Law 20.1.1.1 which states that [a ball is dead when] it is finally settled in the hands of the wicket-keeper or of the bowler. So you could question whether the ball was dead, having settled in the wicket keeper's hands. (Although, please don't!)
the advantage the batsmen seemed to gain by the long stride worked against him because he lost control of being in the crease as he tried to get himself back up
same position there with keeper holding ball over stumps I’d have expected him to be more careful .