[Cricket] The Ashes- England v Australia- 3rd Test, Headingley, July 06-10, 2023

[Eeyore]

I think the worst part of the discussions around the Carey/Bairstow incident is the people labelling Carey (and the rest of the Aussie team by extension) as "cheats" when everyone who is responsible for setting, administering, and enforcing the laws of the game is in full agreement that it was a legal dismissal. The fact you disagree with that form of dismissal being within the "spirit of the game" does not mean they've cheated. IMO the fact you're labelling them as cheats is exposing your own bias and you need to step back and reconsider whether your opinion is being affected by that.

Bairstow himself has previously said that if a mode of dismissal is legal within the laws of the game, then it's fair game and he'll try it. There's plenty of evidence of him doing exactly that historically, so I'm still firmly of the opinion that he has only himself to blame. The Labuschagne incident just a couple of days before proves it. And no, I don't accept the batsman taking guard outside the crease as relevant: 1) doing so is within the laws of the game, 2) all batsmen do it from time to time, and 3) by the time Bairstow made his attempt Labu was grounded behind the line having stepped back in playing the ball. If you're (can't remember if it was you specifically, but I've seen it mentioned multiple times by those defending Bairstow) telling me that Bairstow attempting a long-range run out on Labu was fair game and within the "spirit of the game", then Carey's attempt was as well. You can't have it both ways.

There seems to be a consensus amongst old players that it isn't so much of an issue as being made out. If Bairstow had done it to Carey I don't think folk would be complaining as much.

I maintain that I didn't like it, but I'm not going to get toxic over it. As I said, the 'spirit of cricket' is a subjective thing with different takes. Until then you only have the rules. By continuing with this folk are looking a bit sore, and hypocritically sore in many cases. I thought Holding, who for me is a cricketing deity, spoke well on the issue.

I do enjoy the boos though

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

There seems to be a consensus amongst old players that it isn't so much of an issue as being made out. If Bairstow had done it to Carey I don't think folk would be complaining as much.

I maintain that I didn't like it, but I'm not going to get toxic over it. As I said, the 'spirit of cricket' is a subjective thing with different takes. Until then you only have the rules. By continuing with this folk are looking a bit sore, and hypocritically sore in many cases. I thought Holding, who for me is a cricketing deity, spoke well on the issue.

I do enjoy the boos though

I am enjoying all the comparisons to "similar" dismissals though, all of which turn out to not be at all the same in subtly different ways.
If it's within the spirit of the game, there's no need to justify it. Highlighting that other people haven't, as it turns out, done the same thing, only draws attention to it.

 

[Guinness Boy]

This has been the Bairstow series for all the wrong reasons so far. As Mo G pointed out he’s about 200 runs in debit and not picking Foakes has been the folly we all thought it would be. Today is his chance to change all of that. He’ll be fired up to. I think he either gets below 40 or well over 100.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

I think the worst part of the discussions around the Carey/Bairstow incident is the people labelling Carey (and the rest of the Aussie team by extension) as "cheats" when everyone who is responsible for setting, administering, and enforcing the laws of the game is in full agreement that it was a legal dismissal. The fact you disagree with that form of dismissal being within the "spirit of the game" does not mean they've cheated. IMO the fact you're labelling them as cheats is exposing your own bias and you need to step back and reconsider whether your opinion is being affected by that.

Bairstow himself has previously said that if a mode of dismissal is legal within the laws of the game, then it's fair game and he'll try it. There's plenty of evidence of him doing exactly that historically, so I'm still firmly of the opinion that he has only himself to blame. The Labuschagne incident just a couple of days before proves it. And no, I don't accept the batsman taking guard outside the crease as relevant: 1) doing so is within the laws of the game, 2) all batsmen do it from time to time, and 3) by the time Bairstow made his attempt Labu was grounded behind the line having stepped back in playing the ball. If you're (can't remember if it was you specifically, but I've seen it mentioned multiple times by those defending Bairstow) telling me that Bairstow attempting a long-range run out on Labu was fair game and within the "spirit of the game", then Carey's attempt was as well. You can't have it both ways.

And there you go again. I don’t care what Bairstow has said previously. I don’t really care about the views of ex players and administrators. I don’t need them to validate my opinion. I don’t have a bias because I don’t support England particularly strongly. I’m just telling you what Carey would have been called at the village cricket club where I grew up. That’s my opinion and you have a different one. All good…but Carey (and by extension all of the Aussie team-especially the sandpapering part) are also cheats. Enjoy the day. Unfortunately I can’t watch due to a mess up in appointments in my switch from BT to Virgin, meaning I have no Wi-Fi until tomorrow.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

I don’t have a bias because I don’t support England particularly strongly.

Have you caught that off the scousers?

 

[PeterT]

I think the worst part of the discussions around the Carey/Bairstow incident is the people labelling Carey (and the rest of the Aussie team by extension) as "cheats" when everyone who is responsible for setting, administering, and enforcing the laws of the game is in full agreement that it was a legal dismissal. The fact you disagree with that form of dismissal being within the "spirit of the game" does not mean they've cheated. IMO the fact you're labelling them as cheats is exposing your own bias and you need to step back and reconsider whether your opinion is being affected by that.

Bairstow himself has previously said that if a mode of dismissal is legal within the laws of the game, then it's fair game and he'll try it. There's plenty of evidence of him doing exactly that historically, so I'm still firmly of the opinion that he has only himself to blame. The Labuschagne incident just a couple of days before proves it. And no, I don't accept the batsman taking guard outside the crease as relevant: 1) doing so is within the laws of the game, 2) all batsmen do it from time to time, and 3) by the time Bairstow made his attempt Labu was grounded behind the line having stepped back in playing the ball. If you're (can't remember if it was you specifically, but I've seen it mentioned multiple times by those defending Bairstow) telling me that Bairstow attempting a long-range run out on Labu was fair game and within the "spirit of the game", then Carey's attempt was as well. You can't have it both ways.

To be fair the cheats thing applies more to bending the rules over many years and incidents, not just this one. When it’s within the rules and not within the spirit, you guys claim ‘but it’s within the rules’. When it’s not within the rules, you claim it should be or that the rules need to change. You have every argument covered. And it would be convenient to turn it back on England, but then you would have to do the same against South Africa, or New Zealand, or India …. You defend each incident so vigorously but don’t have the gravitas to stop for a moment and think whether the common denominator is always the Australian cricket team and their approach to winning at all costs.

Actually for me, claiming several grounded catches was worse than the run out and seems to have got lost in the discussions. Scraping the ball along the ground has never been a catch in the history of the game, until now that is when Starc says ‘what?’ When it’s overturned, Cummins says it was a technical interpretation of the rules that showed the Australians at their sporting best in the way they reacted, and Glenn 5-0 McGrath thinks shows the law to be outdated. You honestly have an argument for everything, not a good argument, but an argument nonetheless.

 

[Bodian]

To be fair the cheats thing applies more to bending the rules over many years and incidents, not just this one. When it’s within the rules and not within the spirit, you guys claim ‘but it’s within the rules’. When it’s not within the rules, you claim it should be or that the rules need to change. You have every argument covered. And it would be convenient to turn it back on England, but then you would have to do the same against South Africa, or New Zealand, or India …. You defend each incident so vigorously but don’t have the gravitas to stop for a moment and think whether the common denominator is always the Australian cricket team and their approach to winning at all costs.

Actually for me, claiming several grounded catches was worse than the run out and seems to have got lost in the discussions. Scraping the ball along the ground has never been a catch in the history of the game, until now that is when Starc says ‘what?’ When it’s overturned, Cummins says it was a technical interpretation of the rules that showed the Australians at their sporting best in the way they reacted, and Glenn 5-0 McGrath thinks shows the law to be outdated. You honestly have an argument for everything, not a good argument, but an argument nonetheless.

Auusies =bad losing cheats
Poms = whingers

Nothing will change the way we view each other, whatever the logic and reasoning behind it all.

 

[Eeyore]

To be fair the cheats thing applies more to bending the rules over many years and incidents, not just this one. When it’s within the rules and not within the spirit, you guys claim ‘but it’s within the rules’. When it’s not within the rules, you claim it should be or that the rules need to change. You have every argument covered. And it would be convenient to turn it back on England, but then you would have to do the same against South Africa, or New Zealand, or India …. You defend each incident so vigorously but don’t have the gravitas to stop for a moment and think whether the common denominator is always the Australian cricket team and their approach to winning at all costs.

Actually for me, claiming several grounded catches was worse than the run out and seems to have got lost in the discussions. Scraping the ball along the ground has never been a catch in the history of the game, until now that is when Starc says ‘what?’ When it’s overturned, Cummins says it was a technical interpretation of the rules that showed the Australians at their sporting best in the way they reacted, and Glenn 5-0 McGrath thinks shows the law to be outdated. You honestly have an argument for everything, not a good argument, but an argument nonetheless.

Could you give another boo from me today ? I rather enjoyed the ones yesterday.

 

[Simster]

To be fair the cheats thing applies more to bending the rules over many years and incidents, not just this one. When it’s within the rules and not within the spirit, you guys claim ‘but it’s within the rules’. When it’s not within the rules, you claim it should be or that the rules need to change.

Exactly. As Geoff Boycott reminded everyone shortly after the Lords test, it was Australia who bleated that bodyline wasn't in the spirit of the game and that the laws needed to change. In fact, they then threatened not to tour in 1938 if England bowled bodyline at them. Eventually, the laws changed so that you can't have more than 2 fielders in the quadrant behind square on the leg side. Quite right too I think. Same with limiting the number of bouncers after the West Indies overused them for years in the 70s and 80s.

But now when the Aussies cheat by not playing within the spirit the game and throw their arms up to proclaim "it's not illegal", they seem happy to forget this important piece of cricketing history now that it suits them to do so.

 

[Greg Bobkin]

Woakes and Ali can both hold a bat. Wood can attack on his day. We might apporach parity with them when 200 SHOULD have got us a lead in this test. You can talk about the batting/style all you want but the fielding has been poor hasn't it.

It has, but even if all the chances were taken, there could've been someone else in the Aussie lineup who could've got a big score and the game situation would be the same. Just because one thing does or doesn't happen, it doesn't mean that everything else that follows would've been the same.

 

[Simster]

Woakes and Ali can both hold a bat. Wood can attack on his day. We might apporach parity with them when 200 SHOULD have got us a lead in this test. You can talk about the batting/style all you want but the fielding has been poor hasn't it.

You say Ali can bat, and he can - but when was the last time he made a serious contribution under pressure? He's one of the worst for throwing his wicket away. If he makes more than 25 today I'll be very surprised.

 

[CHAPPERS]

You say Ali can bat, and he can - but when was the last time he made a serious contribution under pressure? He's one of the worst for throwing his wicket away. If he makes more than 25 today I'll be very surprised.

You make a good point. Just looked at his record and it's worse than I thought. I was there last year (maybe two years ago?) when he was well set at the Oval and played an awful shot to get caught (in an ainnings saved by Woakes). Still, on his day and all that....

 

[Bodian]

FFS

 

[KZNSeagull]

Root out second ball of the morning. 68-4

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Good start.

Predictable of course

 

[WhingForPresident]

f***ing shitshow.

 

[Simster]

Simster, the beauty of NSC, I'm going totally the other way.

Think Root and Bairstow on their home ground will dig in, 200/3 plus by lunch, think we will end up with a decent first innings lead before them back in probably just before lunch tomorrow.

Well played.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

Should have gone for a reverse sweep.

 

[Simster]

Note also how Australia haven't dropped any catches unlike our useless bell ends.

 

[The Wizard]

We are just shit, simple as.