[Cricket] The Ashes- England v Australia- 2nd Test, Lords, June 28 - July 02, 2023

[cirC]

The spirit of the game? So Lyon gets injured, self inflicted and is allowed by the rules to have a substitute fielder. That's ok, no problem with that. He is though fit enough to bat, the Aussies needed the runs didn't they, but in my book if you can bat then you can also field. Substitute fielder is allowed to field at short leg a key catching position. No objection from Stokes (He could have had him at long leg but the spirit came in to play) and remember that both Smith and Warner always play in the spirit of the game.
Bit late now but we need to toughen the approach towards them. Finally there should be a new rule introduced which stops the Aussies from getting contracts in the year up to a home series here. Sussex have had Travis Head and Smith playing over the last two seasons here. Allowing them to get used to English conditions is madness. When the England team play in Australia they get at best a couple of games against inferior teams then straight up to Brisbane for the 1st test. The Gabattoir!

 

[Bold Seagull]

The spirit of the game? So Lyon gets injured, self inflicted and is allowed by the rules to have a substitute fielder. That's ok, no problem with that. He is though fit enough to bat, the Aussies needed the runs didn't they, but in my book if you can bat then you can also field. Substitute fielder is allowed to field at short leg a key catching position. No objection from Stokes (He could have had him at long leg but the spirit came in to play) and remember that both Smith and Warner always play in the spirit of the game.
Bit late now but we need to toughen the approach towards them. Finally there should be a new rule introduced which stops the Aussies from getting contracts in the year up to a home series here. Sussex have had Travis Head and Smith playing over the last two seasons here. Allowing them to get used to English conditions is madness. When the England team play in Australia they get at best a couple of games against inferior teams then straight up to Brisbane for the 1st test. The Gabattoir!

To be fair Pope didn’t have to field for long periods and was able to bat at 3.

Labashite was at Glamogan start of this season too.

 

[nicko31]

Some things in sport are legal but it doesn't make them right....

 

[el punal]

A.B.E. - Anyone But England. I thought the Scots, the Welsh and the Irish had this running through their veins but the Aussies seem to have it stamped on their forehead. During the 2003 Rugby World Cup, held in Oz, their media were all out on trying to bring England down. It didn’t matter how well England performed they always looked to have a dig about anything and everything English. It wasn’t until after the final, that we played and beat Australia, that their media finally acknowledged that the best team won. Hoo-bloody-ray!

 

[Triggaaar]

A.B.E. - Anyone But England. I thought the Scots, the Welsh and the Irish had this running through their veins but the Aussies seem to have it stamped on their forehead.

I was thinking along the same lines. I used to support Scotland whenever they played, but after years of crap from them I now support their opponents in every kind of sport, and last night I was thinking the same about Australia. I used to support them in football against cheats like Italy, but my mindset has changed. Anyone but the Aussie cheats.

 

[amexer]

Don't know what the fuss is about. May not be in spirit of the game but Bairstow has done similar in a test match . If the keeper was standing up and did this it would have been accepted. In a recent Ashes game Broad hit the ball to first slip and didn't walk

 

[Bodian]

Don't know what the fuss is about. May not be in spirit of the game but Bairstow has done similar in a test match . If the keeper was standing up and did this it would have been accepted. In a recent Ashes game Broad hit the ball to first slip and didn't walk

If the keeper was standing up, then a) Green wouldn't have deliberately bowled a bouncer to get it through to the keeper, and b) the flow would have been different - if an up-to-the-stumps keeper catches the ball and knocks the bails off in one movement - then the batter would either have been out of his ground playing the shot or in his ground. The only similarity would be if the keeper held on to the ball, waited till the batter had stamped on the ground, looked up, and the umpire fiddled with the bowlers cap - then knocked the bails off. Which could no way be in the 'spirit of the game'.

When you say 'Bairstow has done similar' - when did Bairstow knock the stumps off, appeal, maintain the appeal - and the player was given out? Never. That's the thing isn't it - firstly the pre-meditated nature of what they did, and secondly - not considering withdrawing the appeal. That's what the fuss is about.

 

[Sarisbury Seagull]

I still can't believe it.

Thing is, they would have probably won anyway as they were the better side overall in the match but Broad is right, that is all Carey and the Aussies will be remembered for now.

As unlikely as it is, I desperately hope we smash them in the next three fired up by the crowd. If Lords can be that partisan, Headingley and OT will be really spicy. It's a shame the last game is at the Oval, if we hadn't have already played there, Edgbaston or Trent Bridge would have been great too.

 

[mikeyjh]

Don't know what the fuss is about. May not be in spirit of the game but Bairstow has done similar in a test match . If the keeper was standing up and did this it would have been accepted. In a recent Ashes game Broad hit the ball to first slip and didn't walk

Nope, he edged it to the keeper who deflected it to first slip. A fact ignored by the Aussie press and English apologists.

 

[el punal]

If the keeper was standing up, then a) Green wouldn't have deliberately bowled a bouncer to get it through to the keeper, and b) the flow would have been different - if an up-to-the-stumps keeper catches the ball and knocks the bails off in one movement - then the batter would either have been out of his ground playing the shot or in his ground. The only similarity would be if the keeper held on to the ball, waited till the batter had stamped on the ground, looked up, and the umpire fiddled with the bowlers cap - then knocked the bails off. Which could no way be in the 'spirit of the game'.

When you say 'Bairstow has done similar' - when did Bairstow knock the stumps off, appeal, maintain the appeal - and the player was given out? Never. That's the thing isn't it - firstly the pre-meditated nature of what they did, and secondly - not considering withdrawing the appeal. That's what the fuss is about.

Spirit of the game? In football I suppose a similar circumstance would be giving the ball to the opposition after the game is stopped due to an injury to one of your players. This accepted ‘spirit of the game’ scenario turned to ratshit a few years ago. If memory serves me well I believe Arsenal were playing Sheffield Utd in a cup game. There was an injury to an Arsenal player. Arsenal then had a thrown in giving the ball to the opposition goalie to restart play. Kanu (Arsenal) decided to intercept the ‘pass’ while the Sheffield players were static waiting for their goalie to collect the ball. Kanu totally ignored the protocol and passed the ball to Overmars to tap it into the net. Cue absolute uproar.


Although this was in the rules, ethically both their actions were a complete no-no. Arsene Wenger was so embarrassed by the incident that he asked, and got, a replay. A decent resolution in the end. Maybe the Australian cricket team should take note?

 

[Audax]

So ... prefacing this by admitting I'm biased. I'm an Aussie, and that's going to colour my view on it.

Anyway, few points from my side of the bias fence:

* I don't like what happened. It doesn't feel good. But then, I don't like "mankad" run outs either - but the laws of the game continue to ensconce it in the rules, and...

* ...IMO, it is the responsibility of the batter to preserve their own wicket. When I play club cricket, there's two things I always do when batting:

1. Ensure I remain in my ground until the ball is bowled when at the non-strikers end (yes, I've seen mankad's in club cricket)
2. Ensure I remain in my ground when at the strikers end until the ball is definitively "dead" (ie 'keeper has begun returning the ball to the bowler or umpires have called over).

(I may have a slight advantage in that I played a lot of indoor cricket in Australia, and in that version of the sport the ball is never dead unless the umpire has called over or a wicket has been taken. You can't turn your back as a bowler or the batsmen will sneak a run. You can't leave your crease at any time without risking being run out).

* From what Cummins has said, Carey spotted that Bairstow was wandering out of his ground before the ball would normally be considered dead.

* Given that Carey collected the ball, and then immediately initiated the stumping attempt, IMO Bairstow needs to look to himself - especially as (while not successfully) he's attempted the same thing himself historically, which suggests he's aware of how the rules work.

* It's interesting this has kicked up so much fuss after it's happened in a test match, as historically similar attempts at stumpings / runouts are common enough in one-day and Twenty20 cricket to suggests that players accept it is within both the rules and the spirit of cricket. Indeed, the opposite (ie, batsmen attempting to run a bye when the ball has gone through to the 'keeper) is categorically accepted as within the rules. It's therefore clear that the ball remains "live" for a period of time after the 'keeper has collected it and therefore what Carey did was entirely legal and Bairstow was careless in wandering out of his ground before the ball was dead.

 

[Berty23]

The architect of Englands revival.

Eagerly looking forward to this hypocrites next instalment tomorrow. No doubt he will be running with England 2-0 up or something.

Nz called back collingwood. I love the efforts to defend though.

This is worse than a Mankad. At least with a Mankad the batsman is trying to gain something. In this instance jonny scraped his crease which everyone knows means “in” and then left his crease. The umpire was not looking because he was getting a jumper out of the loop on his jacket.

Running out murali was shocking but again different.

 

[Questions]

Sandpiper, bowling underarm and now this….
What a bunch they are really.

 

[Is it PotG?]

So ... prefacing this by admitting I'm biased. I'm an Aussie, and that's going to colour my view on it.

Anyway, few points from my side of the bias fence:

* I don't like what happened. It doesn't feel good. But then, I don't like "mankad" run outs either - but the laws of the game continue to ensconce it in the rules, and...

* ...IMO, it is the responsibility of the batter to preserve their own wicket. When I play club cricket, there's two things I always do when batting:

1. Ensure I remain in my ground until the ball is bowled when at the non-strikers end (yes, I've seen mankad's in club cricket)
2. Ensure I remain in my ground when at the strikers end until the ball is definitively "dead" (ie 'keeper has begun returning the ball to the bowler or umpires have called over).

(I may have a slight advantage in that I played a lot of indoor cricket in Australia, and in that version of the sport the ball is never dead unless the umpire has called over or a wicket has been taken. You can't turn your back as a bowler or the batsmen will sneak a run. You can't leave your crease at any time without risking being run out).

* From what Cummins has said, Carey spotted that Bairstow was wandering out of his ground before the ball would normally be considered dead.

* Given that Carey collected the ball, and then immediately initiated the stumping attempt, IMO Bairstow needs to look to himself - especially as (while not successfully) he's attempted the same thing himself historically, which suggests he's aware of how the rules work.

* It's interesting this has kicked up so much fuss after it's happened in a test match, as historically similar attempts at stumpings / runouts are common enough in one-day and Twenty20 cricket to suggests that players accept it is within both the rules and the spirit of cricket. Indeed, the opposite (ie, batsmen attempting to run a bye when the ball has gone through to the 'keeper) is categorically accepted as within the rules. It's therefore clear that the ball remains "live" for a period of time after the 'keeper has collected it and therefore what Carey did was entirely legal and Bairstow was careless in wandering out of his ground before the ball was dead.

 

[Is it PotG?]

Sandpaper, bowling underarm and now this….
What a bunch they are really.

Don't forget Lillee and his aluminium bat.

 

[Berty23]

So ... prefacing this by admitting I'm biased. I'm an Aussie, and that's going to colour my view on it.

Anyway, few points from my side of the bias fence:

* I don't like what happened. It doesn't feel good. But then, I don't like "mankad" run outs either - but the laws of the game continue to ensconce it in the rules, and...

* ...IMO, it is the responsibility of the batter to preserve their own wicket. When I play club cricket, there's two things I always do when batting:

1. Ensure I remain in my ground until the ball is bowled when at the non-strikers end (yes, I've seen mankad's in club cricket)
2. Ensure I remain in my ground when at the strikers end until the ball is definitively "dead" (ie 'keeper has begun returning the ball to the bowler or umpires have called over).

(I may have a slight advantage in that I played a lot of indoor cricket in Australia, and in that version of the sport the ball is never dead unless the umpire has called over or a wicket has been taken. You can't turn your back as a bowler or the batsmen will sneak a run. You can't leave your crease at any time without risking being run out).

* From what Cummins has said, Carey spotted that Bairstow was wandering out of his ground before the ball would normally be considered dead.

* Given that Carey collected the ball, and then immediately initiated the stumping attempt, IMO Bairstow needs to look to himself - especially as (while not successfully) he's attempted the same thing himself historically, which suggests he's aware of how the rules work.

* It's interesting this has kicked up so much fuss after it's happened in a test match, as historically similar attempts at stumpings / runouts are common enough in one-day and Twenty20 cricket to suggests that players accept it is within both the rules and the spirit of cricket. Indeed, the opposite (ie, batsmen attempting to run a bye when the ball has gone through to the 'keeper) is categorically accepted as within the rules. It's therefore clear that the ball remains "live" for a period of time after the 'keeper has collected it and therefore what Carey did was entirely legal and Bairstow was careless in wandering out of his ground before the ball was dead.

Can you show me where he has attempted the same thing please? This is being said a lot. But all the examples I have seen are when labu is batting outside of his crease to get an advantage. I have not yet seen one where bairstow has waited for a batsman to think it is over then throw the ball. Yes he was dopey but let’s not make up lies to justify the actions of a team who said they had looked at themselves and felt spirit of cricket in addition to the laws is important.

Other comparisons are also laughable. Colin DeG going walkabout ie wanting a run when an appeal was underway. Again looking for advantage. A collision between batsman and bowler while taking a run. It is the batsman’s job to get out of fielders way.

How many times in this series have batsman tossed the ball back to fielders without asking? Each one could have been appealed. Are Oz saving that for Leeds?

 

[PeterT]

I was there yesterday and also at Headingley 2019. It was an incredible atmosphere, shame it wasn’t the same result.

I was also there at Trent Bridge when Ian Bell was run out and reinstated by the Indians for something kind of similar.

The thing with the Australians, and there were plenty near me yesterday (I was was not quiet in my views!) is that they are a lovely people from a great country but when it comes to sport, and cricket in particular, they change and become the nastiest ‘win at all costs’ b*stards you could ever meet.

We all know it was technically out, and most know that what they did was done with no regard to the spirit of the game. They haven’t changed from the underarm incident, or sandpaper-gate. Smith, Labushagne and others have all claimed catches that were grounded. The Starc one was also embarrassing and they are trying to make that as being the same as what happened to Bairstow (it was apparently a strict interpretation of the laws that says if you ground the ball it’s not a catch!).

Then they go back to Broad not walking in a previous test, just as plenty of Aussies never did and some (like Mike Hussey) even have said very publicly that they would never walk.

I was also there at the 2007 Rugby World Cup Q/f against them in Marseilles. Absolutely full of it before the game, nowhere to be seen afterwards, like the game hadn’t even happened. Shirts all packed away, no rugby conversation allowed In the hotel.

I did manage to aim a sledge at Warner yesterday ‘you’re not even the biggest cheat in your team anymore!’ but all any of this does is entrench each camp into their own views and add to the theatre of the Ashes and its folklore. I can honestly say that I would be embarrassed to follow a team like that and I would genuinely rather lose than win in that manner. But they would say the opposite so good luck to them and I suspect they will get what they want.

I am going to 3 days at Leeds to so look forward to a very tasty and hostile atmosphere on the Western Terrace then too!

 

[Berty23]

Don't know what the fuss is about. May not be in spirit of the game but Bairstow has done similar in a test match . If the keeper was standing up and did this it would have been accepted. In a recent Ashes game Broad hit the ball to first slip and didn't walk

When did Broad hit one to slip and not walk? I remember one where he got a thin edge to the keeper who dropped it and it went from the keeper’s glove to slip but not when B-road hit one to slip. I must have missed that one. Could you provide a link? Or is this perhaps another rewriting of history?

 

[Bozza]

When did Broad hit one to slip and not walk? I remember one where he got a thin edge to the keeper who dropped it and it went from the keeper’s glove to slip but not when B-road hit one to slip. I must have missed that one. Could you provide a link? Or is this perhaps another rewriting of history?

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

It occurs to me this morning that all the Australians who are now very insistent on the importance of playing to the letter of the law had spent much of the day leading up to Bairstow's dismissal in a state of performative outrage that Starc hadn't been allowed to claim a clearly grounded catch, and arguing that the law should be changed.