The Ashes

Same old Aussies, always cheating!

Anyone watch the second Test? Very shabby way to get Bairstow out and was amazed to see the MCC members kicking off with the Aussie team. Also the Aussies moaning about a catch not being given out when it quite clearly hit the ground 

The innings by Ben Stokes was incredible though and if he could have pulled off a win it would have been one of the greatest wins and performances ever, very Bothamesque!

According to the laws of the game Bairstow was legally 'stumped' (I've never fully understood why it wasn't a run out - say the first slip did exactly the same it wouldn't be a stumping, it would be a run out?) and the 'catch' was legal too.

The grey area if you will is that one would have expect Bairstow to have been given a warning first by the fielding side before they did it and that the 'catcher' would have be expected to turn his wrist around and keep the ball away from the ground - in neither case that happened but Bairstow WAS out of his ground whilst the ball was still in play BY THE FIELDING SIDE and that the catcher had clear control of the ball before and after touching the ground.

The game was though gripping and the incidents gave it the 'edge' that made things more thrilling.

Saying that though I'm starting not to like Bazball cricket.

Cricket is starting to lose its integrity.

The Bairstow stumping was totally against the spirit of cricket - being somewhat underhanded and unfair, and the ceaseless bowling of bouncers by both sides was crude, brutal and unsubtle in its attempts to take wickets and brought out the stupidity of the English players to take it on at all costs and Australia doing the exact opposite - where's the enjoyment in watching either?

I've enjoyed Bazball up to this series but I don't get the stupidity to do it at all times - no matter what - when clearly it just becomes ridiculous and we end up simply throwing wickets away and losing both games which we reasonably could be viewed to have been the better side in both and probably would have won both if we simply stopped trying to hit sixes with all the fielders on the boundary - it was just madness???

If I want to watch 6 or out cricket, I'll watch T20 games.

I want to watch the best players playing their best cricket over 5 days using the skills and brains to win - not stupid macho brute force or what more or less amounts to cheating.

If I wanted to follow that I'd join the post Brexit Tory Party...

I don't want to do either thank you, I simply want Bazball played with intelligence and fairness, please.

I agree Sluffy, Bazball is great but they needed to not just take on the bouncers every time and play with a bit more caution.

I suppose the Bairstow dismissal is in the rules but not in the spirit of the game. The Aussies have made themselves very unpopular now. The next game is at Headingly so they are going to get it big time there!

1. Starc literally grounded the ball and dragged it along the turf without having his fingers under the ball to support it. Not out.

2. Bairstow clearly felt the ball was dead once it was resting in Carey's gloves and he tapped the ground confirming his position within his crease (as a signal of his intention to leave his ground and walk down the wicket, in order to pat down the pitch-mark). He was not trying to run for a quick single or gain any advantage.

He had done the same after the previous delivery and so the bowler/captain had ample opportunity to warn him which would have been the decent/sporting thing to do. 
Grey area. A matter of interpretation. Umpire gave Cummins the chance to withdraw the appeal. He wouldn't.
Compare (via Google) with the famous Mankad incident, similarly sly.

Bairstow knows the rules, why take the risk, why give them the opportunity to take advantage of the situation?

Arrogance or stupidity, not sure.

So frustrating.


Stokes was very impressive.

okocha wrote:1. Starc literally grounded the ball and dragged it along the turf without having his fingers under the ball to support it. Not out.

2. Bairstow clearly felt the ball was dead once it was resting in Carey's gloves and he tapped the ground confirming his position within his crease (as a signal of his intention to leave his ground and walk down the wicket, in order to pat down the pitch-mark). He was not trying to run for a quick single or gain any advantage.

He had done the same after the previous delivery and so the bowler/captain had ample opportunity to warn him which would have been the decent/sporting thing to do. 
Grey area. A matter of interpretation. Umpire gave Cummins the chance to withdraw the appeal. He wouldn't.
Compare (via Google) with the famous Mankad incident, similarly sly.

No grey area...just the rules of the game.

Also - Compare (via Google) with the infamous Grant Elliot incident, similarly shameful - but this time by us!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/england/7474301.stm


The Ashes 2023: Jonny Bairstow should have been warned before dismissal, says Jonathan Agnew

I have been coming to Lord's for many years now but have never witnessed anything like the fifth day of the second Ashes Test on Sunday.

Let's get one thing straight first: technically, Jonny Bairstow's contentious dismissal was out.

He wandered out of his ground before the ball was dead and wicketkeeper Alex Carey threw down the stumps.

Bairstow may have scratched the crease with his boot, seemingly declaring himself that the ball was dead, but that is not how it works.

In the BBC box, I was in the process of a handover to the next commentator. The umpire Ahsan Raza was reaching for bowler Cameron Green's cap. It felt like the end of the over but, technically, it was not.

The issue, though, once again, comes back to that difficult thing - the spirit of cricket.

It is not a black and white rulebook but the code we all follow the game by. It is a personal thing.

Bairstow had gone on the same wander down the pitch after each of the previous three balls but he was not trying to gain an advantage. He was not setting off for a run or batting out of his crease to negate swing.

Others will disagree with me, some of my Test Match Special colleagues do, but that is why I would have liked to have seen Australia give Bairstow a warning before going through with that kind of dismissal.

Back in 2008, we had the situation where England ran out New Zealand's Grant Elliott after bowler Ryan Sidebottom had crashed into him and knocked him to the ground in a one-day international.

England captain Paul Collingwood should have withdrawn his appeal that day and, like on that occasion, there was time, while the TV umpire was deliberating, when Cummins had the chance to change his mind. When you are in your huddle, you have the chance to think 'I'm not sure about this'.

But when I spoke to him afterwards, Cummins was adamant in his position. He said it was "fair" and that just shows how these things are individual decisions.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/66082593

Cajunboy wrote:Bairstow knows the rules, why take the risk, why give them the opportunity to take advantage of the situation?

Arrogance or stupidity, not sure.

So frustrating.


Stokes was very impressive.

I don't think it was either, I imagine almost every cricketer has done the same, namely knows the passage of play is over, conscientiously touches behind the crease then wanders off to pat the pitch or speak to the other batter.

The right thing was for Australia to give a warning.

They didn't - they were not compelled to do so.

The spirit of the game which has existed for 150 years should have been to withdraw the appeal - they didn't - that's why I posted what I did above about how cricket lost it's integrity yesterday when winning became more important than the game of cricket itself.

Let's be honest, we still had a lot to do and up to that point Stokes was defending his wicket and not playing the blinder he did fuelled by his anger of what had happened.

The odds were stacked in Australia's favour to win anyway - simply no need to do what they did - and their captain should have withdrawn the appeal - but this is Australia and previously disgraced cheats Smith and Warner were in the team yesterday and no doubt the win at all costs ethos very much prevails in all of the Australian squad.

We'd already thrown the game once with the stupidity of trying to hit every bouncer for six in the first innings - so I would have expected Stokes or Bairstow throwing away their wicket sooner or later yesterday - because we could not have won needing 5 runs an over without playing Bazball at some point and a winning Botham or Stokes innings only happens once every blue moon and not every time we need one.

It's just a game at the end of the day - let's not forget that.

Don't have a problem. It was out.
The 'spirit of the game' is a myth. Bairstow tried the same thing with Warner in an earlier test.
And I think it's a bit rich that one of the biggest whiners is Broad, who, if you remember, refused to walk a few years back, when he was clearly out. Where was the so called spirit then.
I played amateur cricket, and was always a walker. I consider anyone who doesn't walk, knowing they nicked it,a cheat. No rules were broken here.
It's the Ashes. Second is nowhere.

boltonbonce wrote:Don't have a problem. It was out.
The 'spirit of the game' is a myth. Bairstow tried the same thing with Warner in an earlier test.
And I think it's a bit rich that one of the biggest whiners is Broad, who, if you remember, refused to walk a few years back, when he was clearly out. Where was the so called spirit then.
I played amateur cricket, and was always a walker. I consider anyone who doesn't walk, knowing they nicked it,a cheat. No rules were broken here.
It's the Ashes. Second is nowhere.

Totally agree Bonce, I was more golfer than cricketer but the same applies. Touch the sand in a bunker, ball moves when you address it etc. and you call it, whether the other players have seen it or not. That’s the rules and nothing to do with the spirit of the game. Both go together for me and should apply in any sport. Sadly the worlds no longer like that and not just in sport.

Whitesince63 wrote:
Totally agree Bonce, I was more golfer than cricketer but the same applies. Touch the sand in a bunker, ball moves when you address it etc. and you call it, whether the other players have seen it or not. That’s the rules and nothing to do with the spirit of the game. Both go together for me and should apply in any sport. Sadly the worlds no longer like that and not just in sport.

Yes, it would be nice to think that ethics still had a place in sport. Sadly, we live in another age. Cheating has gone on for years of course. W.G. Grace was big culprit.
I remember a story about a batsman looking down to see a delivery had nicked his stumps, and the bails had been toppled.
Looking sheepishly at the umpire he said, "Windy today, isn't it?"
'Aye", replied the umpire, "careful it doesn't blow yer cap off on the way back to the pavilion".

Whitesince63 wrote:

boltonbonce wrote:Don't have a problem. It was out.
The 'spirit of the game' is a myth. Bairstow tried the same thing with Warner in an earlier test.
And I think it's a bit rich that one of the biggest whiners is Broad, who, if you remember, refused to walk a few years back, when he was clearly out. Where was the so called spirit then.
I played amateur cricket, and was always a walker. I consider anyone who doesn't walk, knowing they nicked it,a cheat. No rules were broken here.
It's the Ashes. Second is nowhere.

Totally agree Bonce, I was more golfer than cricketer but the same applies. Touch the sand in a bunker, ball moves when you address it etc. and you call it, whether the other players have seen it or not. That’s the rules and nothing to do with the spirit of the game. Both go together for me and should apply in any sport. Sadly the worlds no longer like that and not just in sport.

Similar in snooker too.

Cricket, golf, snooker, etc, they are just games and nothing more - but for some reason I can't fathom, most people seem to treat them as far, far, more important than that, almost it seems they devote a large chunk of their life to them - but when all said and done they are simply games to play or watch - nothing more.

Some people feel the need to cheat to win at  'game's, but why? - yet they do - Christ we even have people telling lies on here - a meaningless, social media, footy forum, ffs!

Why though?

It certainly holds no importance, value or worth...?

And neither does a game of cricket, football, etc.

It is what it is I suppose but it doesn't mean I like or accept it.

Take football for instance, it is just about money and greed now, if I hadn't followed Bolton since the sixties, I wouldn't bother with football at all, I'm  certainly not been interested in football outside BWFC for years now.

I've enjoyed cricket since the sixties as well, I've enjoyed Bazball up to now too, so I can adapt and don't live in the past, but what is the point about having all the fielders on the boundary and our players still trying to hit six's???

Just stupid - we weren't even in a run chase at the time!!!

Same with winning at any cost - is it really worth it - not for me it isn't.

I suspect some sort of sense will now prevail from now on but you never know do you?

We'll find out during the summer no doubt.

The world has changed, we've just had the feral of France setting fire to their local health centre's and robbing their city's Nike superstore all in the name of calling out racism - how the fuck does burning down your local health centre that the poor and ill of your own community, need and use, and nicking ten boxes of your favourite trainers help end racism???

It doesn't, it's just an excuse to mindlessly destroy and steal, nothing at all to change racism.

Look how people behaved during Brexit!

It's worldwide.

Nobody has a monopoly on stupidity and cheating - hardly any wonder why we've seen what we've seen in the Ashes this summer is it!

I'll stick to being honest and continue to seek out the facts rather than believe the bullshit on social media or right wing think tanks, like nearly everyone else seems to do these days.

I might be in a minority of one but why would I want to be ignorant, stupid and dishonest if that is the alternative?

I don't.

Bairstow should have been given a warning and failing that when the wicket was thrown down and given out, their captain should have called Bairstow back.

That's the 'game', or it is for me.

Turns out that Bairstow had seen the umpires starting to move off in preparation for the next over and Cameron Green had gone to get his sweater from one of them, ready to take up his fielding position.

 Bairstow can hardly be blamed for interpreting these as indisputable signals for the end of the over, but, to be on the safe side, he also made a routine show of marking his ground within the crease with his bat and foot before moving off to do a bit of "gardening" on the pitch marks, as batters customarily do.

If there was any suggestion of cheating, it most certainly wasn't on Bairstow's part! 

Starc started the unprincipled stuff by claiming a catch when he had clearly grounded the ball and slid it a few feet along the turf with his hand on top of the ball. Shortly after, the keeper and close fielders, including the two that had been banned and disgraced a couple of years ago for the "sandpapergate" incident on tour in South Africa, conspired to find an underhand way to dismiss Bairstow. 

The umpires should have been stronger in their appeals to Cummins to play fair. The normally sedate Lords' members turned ugly. Stokes kept his dignity. Sunak got involved. Mick Jagger was looking elsewhere.....Stephen Fry was busy in the Gents'....

You're in some sort of fantasy land!

The law states...

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.
https://www.lords.org/mcc/the-laws-of-cricket/dead-ball

...clearly Carey deliberately played the ball to stump Bairstow and therefore the fielding side DID NOT cease play, even if Bairstow had.

Think of it in football terms that you 'play to the whistle' and not what you think is right or wrong.

As for Starc, my interpretation of the rules (and no doubt his too) was that the catch was good and Duckett should have been given out.


33.3 Making a catch

The act of making a catch shall start from the time when the ball first comes into contact with a fielder’s person and shall end when a fielder obtains complete control over both the ball and his/her own movement.
https://www.lords.org/mcc/the-laws-of-cricket/caught

In my opinion Starc took the catch cleanly and was in complete control of his movement in that he could easily have turned his wrist to prevent the ball touching the ground as he landed.

Going by my adage of 'playing to the whistle', Starc chose not to turn his wrist and was clearly surprised the catch was not given - his (and my) interpretation of the law was clearly different to that of the umpires who are the final arbiters on the matter.

There was obviously no intent whatsoever to cheat by Starc - he would have known the catch would be shown on the big screen at the ground and on TV to the rest of the world - and nobody is that stupid to lie their way out of that (well I do know of one person who would no doubt have tried to...!) - it simply was a case of his reading of the law was not the right one - nothing more than that.

It certainly isn't the job of the umpires to pressurise anyone into withdrawing an appeal - the umpires are impartial at all times - quite rightly too.

As for your homophobic inference of Stephen Fry - that sort of stuff is not wanted on this site and never has been.

Isn't your shtick on here to be for inclusivity and equality - or had you forgotten that...?

Seeing England get humbled has been absolutely delicious

Nail biting stuff but we won!

On now to Old Trafford...

An exciting win today despite two of Yorkshire's finest having shockers on their home ground at Headingley.  Bairstow has returned from injury somewhat overweight and slow to move into position, and Root appears to me to be struggling to see the ball quickly enough when fielding or batting, and is playing too many dab shots instead of his usual flowing strokes.

These are two very evenly matched sides, which makes for thrilling, close finishes. 

Wood bowling consistently at around 95mph is an exciting sight and a game-changer.  Great stuff!

There really is a God after all. Let's hope he doesn't desert us at Old Trafford and The Oval.
Was a real nailbiter today and being the eternal pessimist I am, at no stage until we needed 1 run to win did I think we'd do it. 
Really chuffed for Chris Woakes. He gives absolutely everything every time he plays for England and had a great match all round. Harry Brook is a real find as well and Mark Wood was just brilliant.
Thank God there is a 9 day break now to let my nervous system recover.
I hate losing to the Aussies.

It was an exciting end to the game and keeps the series alive but we need to bring in Foakes as a specialist wicketkeeper as Bairstow is struggling to do both roles.

Will Jimmy get back in the team for OT?

I would have had Foakes in from the start and played Bairstow as an opener instead of Crawley.

Crawley looks a magnificent player but always seems to be able to give his wicket away far to often.

Maybe he might play better in the number three spot in place of the injured Pope?

But if you do play Crawley, Bairstow and Foakes, then who do you leave out?

And if you bring back Anderson then who do you drop?

And how injured is Stokes - can you rely on him to bowl in both innings?

Tough calls for the selectors unless they don't play a spinner apart from Root???

Will Robinson be fit for Old Trafford too?

My team fwiw and assuming Robinson is injured is Anderson and Foakes in, Crawley and Robinson out.

Could Bairstow play at 3? It would solve an issue there with Pope out. There was a stat on TMS yesterday that Bairstow when he was doing both roles his batting average was only 17 but before that just as a batsman it was 61 so worth a go as Ali is not good enough.

Not sure Jimmy is worth a place now to be honest, i would go with Broad, Wood, Woakes and Tongue but then that does leave us without a spinner so as you say Sluffy it is a tough choice.

I can see Robinson not playing so would be a choice between Jimmy and Tongue so i expect them to go with Jimmy even though he has been poor so far this series.