Cricket

[den]

Great cricketing day for me yesterday. Watched Ashes on TV then off to OT to see Lancs progress to a home quarter finals tie on Friday, then back home to watch the Ashes highlights on TV. 🙂

The Bairstow incident? I would much rather see players being got out by cricketing skills, than the underhand way the Aussies went about it. They should have withdrawn their appeal which would have acted as a warning to Bairstow to be careful in future. Not that he was in any way trying to achieve any advantage by going for his mid wicket chat anyway.

Only downside is Lancs charging us £20 for a ticket for the QF shortly after the Roses game was abandoned without a ball being bowled. Non members got their ticket fee refunded.  🤨 Last season it was free for members.

Edited July 3, 2023 by den

[Dreams of 1995]

8 minutes ago, Mellor Rover said:

There was less than two seconds from the time the ball touched Carey's gloves to the bails being on the floor. He wasn't stood there waiting for him to do it.

He actually was stood there waiting for him to do it Mellor, that’s the thing 

As I said, Bairstow scratched his crease and the umpire had started to remove the bowlers cap. It’s all on video. It was a technicality because the word “over” was not called. This does imply though that Bairstow was trying to gain an advantage by moving out his crease. If somebody can show me what that advantage is I’d be grateful 

From where I and millions other Englishmen were sat, the bowl was settled in the wicket keepers gloves 

Edited July 3, 2023 by Dreams of 1995

[chaddyrovers]

3 hours ago, oldjamfan1 said:

You are wrong on both counts here. The de Grandhomme dismissal was as a direct result of him coming too far down the wicket to try and influence the umpire in relation to the LBW appeal he was facing, or if I'm being kind it was his forward momentum. Either way the ball very obviously was not dead in that example. Pope genuinely ran him out, albeit it was an unusual dismissal. 

Thanks for explaining the De Grandhomme dismissal that Ewood Ace mentioned. I couldn't remember it to be honest. 

3 hours ago, oldjamfan1 said:

As for the Starc 'catch' - Bumble (not only a top player and coach in his time but also a superb umpire) summed it up perfectly for me yesterday when asked about it at Old Trafford . He said words to the effect of "Look, I don't know why this is even being debated. The ball was grounded, not a catch, end of story".

Bumble knows the game and the rules. He is spot on that Starc's catch was grounded. simple as that

3 hours ago, Mellor Rover said:

Duckett walked, stopped to look at the screen, and carried on walking. He was happy it was out.

Starc clearly grounded the ball, end of story. 3rd umpire said it wasn't out

[Ewood Ace]

50 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

In the incident of Bairstow he had scratched his crease with his foot; the umpire had got the hat of the bowler out of his pocket. The crowd, the players, all except Carey was acting like the ball was dead.

The laws of the dead ball is "finally the bowl has settled in the wicket keepers hands"

Australia certainly didn't accept the ball was dead you only had to look at their instant reaction to see that this was something they had spotted Bairstow doing and had planned to punish. The umpires evidently didn't class it as dead and I'm not sure what the crowd have to do with anything. I mean how many times do you hear a crowd cheer a bump ball as a wicket. As for Carey he threw the ball straight away before Bairstow had even left his crease.

50 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

Stokes was side lined pending an investigation into a fight which happened outside of the sport. He was found not guilty for those crimes. The ECB punished him for bringing the game in to disrepute. As much as you may pretend there isn't, amongst sportsmen at least, there is a marked difference between an incident outside of the sport and an incident within it. It has no relevance in this debate

That's incorrect Stokes was handed an 8 match ban by the ECB for brining the game into disrepute. Given all the talk about the spirit of cricket (a myth) in regards to yesterday's game I'd say it is relevant the the England Captain has previously been banned and fined for bring that sport into disrepute.

50 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

There was also a degree of controversy around Stokes' exit following obstructing the field. He had the ball thrown at him from a very close distance. It seemed like instinct for me as opposed to a calculated effort at cheating. Whereas Warner and Smith orchestrated a concerted effort to cheat and were found guilty for it

 

The only controversy was whinging from England again the dismal itself was clear cut the ball was going to hit the stumps and run Stokes out so he flung his hand out to stop it from doing so. That is cheating. 

50 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

The actions of yesterday do not, and have never, justified the actions of today. So talk of 1930s series and a game of Sri Lanka vs NZ years ago do not have any relevance in the discussion around Bairstow's wicket

The Sri Lanka New Zealand game does bare relevance as it was a similar situation in that the batsman dozily walked out of his crease before the ball was dead and after that the bails were removed. And it bares even more relevance because the New Zealand wicket keeper who dislodged the bails was one Brendon McCullum and it wasn't the first time he had done it.

42 minutes ago, den said:

Only downside is Lancs charging us £20 for a ticket for the QF shortly after the Roses game was abandoned without a ball being bowled. Non members got their ticket fee refunded.  🤨 Last season it was free for members.

Think yourself lucky it's £41 for me to sit in my usual seat at Taunton on Friday night for the quarter final and that is with the grand total of a £5 members discount.

45 minutes ago, Mellor Rover said:

There was less than two seconds from the time the ball touched Carey's gloves to the bails being on the floor. He wasn't stood there waiting for him to do it.

Carey certainly didn't wait as long as Foakes does here. Now just like with Carey I have no problem with what Foakes does here it is good sharp thinking but I do wonder if those criticising Carey do have a problem?

 

Edited July 3, 2023 by Ewood Ace

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Thanks for explaining the De Grandhomme dismissal that Ewood Ace mentioned. I couldn't remember it to be honest. 

Bumble knows the game and the rules. He is spot on that Starc's catch was grounded. simple as that

Starc clearly grounded the ball, end of story. 3rd umpire said it wasn't out

So the third umpire’s word is final… interesting. So what’s wrong with him giving Bairstow out?

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Ewood Ace said:

Australia certainly didn't accept the ball was dead you only had to look at their instant reaction to see that this was something they had spotted Bairstow doing and had planned to punish. The umpires evidently didn't class it as dead and I'm not sure what the crowd have to do with anything. I mean how many times do you hear a crowd cheer a bump ball as a wicket. As for Carey he threw the ball straight away before Bairstow had even left his crease.

That's incorrect Stokes was handed an 8 match ban by the ECB for brining the game into disrepute. Given all the talk about the spirit of cricket (a myth) in regards to yesterday's game I'd say it is relevant the the England Captain has previously been banned and fined for bring that sport into disrepute.

The only controversy was winging from England again the dismal itself was clear cut the ball was going to hit the stumps and run Stokes out so he flung his hand out to stop it from doing so. That is cheating. 

The Sri Lanka New Zealand game does bare relevance as it was a similar situation in that the batsman dozily walked out of his crease before the ball was dead and after that the bails were removed. And it bares even more relevance because the New Zealand wicket keeper who dislodged the bails was one Brendon McCullum 

Think yourself lucky it's £41 for me to sit in my usual seat at Taunton on Friday night for the quarter final and that is with the grand total of a £5 members discount.

Carey certainly didn't wait as long as Foakes does here. Now just like with Carey I have no problem with what Foakes does here it is good sharp thinking but I do wonder if those criticising Carey do have a problem?

 

I’m sure it’s somehow different. 🤣

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

He actually was stood there waiting for him to do it Mellor, that’s the thing 

As I said, Bairstow scratched his crease and the umpire had started to remove the bowlers cap. It’s all on video. It was a technicality because the word “over” was not called. This does imply though that Bairstow was trying to gain an advantage by moving out his crease. If somebody can show me what that advantage is I’d be grateful 

From where I and millions other Englishmen were sat, the bowl was settled in the wicket keepers gloves 

Utter rubbish. 

[AllRoverAsia]

4 hours ago, Mellor Rover said:

It's not a love fest, they're a better team than us but we're making excuses of 'they were mean to us!' rather than fighting fire with fire. We're too easy to play against with this brand of cricket. If we'd have dug in at 180-1 rather than the we'll do what we want approach, we wouldn't have lost this test match.

They are the better team and by a distance and agree with all of your post and maybe now even also the first 5 words.

[chaddyrovers]

20 minutes ago, Mellor Rover said:

So the third umpire’s word is final… interesting. So what’s wrong with him giving Bairstow out?

Its come back to spirit of the game and that if you watch the TV coverage Both umpires starting moving and it looks it was over. Neither umpire was watching the play and that's why it had to the refer the 3rd umpire. He made his decision based on the footage he watched which was technical the right decision but was it within the spirit of the game, not for me. That the problem, no doubt we see more of this sort of stuff during the rest of the test series 

[Exiled_Rover]

1 hour ago, Ewood Ace said:

I did have to chuckle at Broad yesterday taking the moral high ground.

He wasn't taking the moral high ground, he was speaking from experience. 

He has nearly 600 Test wickets, but all he's remembered for in Australia is not walking when he nicked a ball. It's a fair warning to Carey - his card is marked now, this is all he'll ever be remembered for in England. 

[Ewood Ace]

7 minutes ago, Exiled_Rover said:

He wasn't taking the moral high ground, he was speaking from experience. 

He has nearly 600 Test wickets, but all he's remembered for in Australia is not walking when he nicked a ball. It's a fair warning to Carey - his card is marked now, this is all he'll ever be remembered for in England. 

He was taking the moral high ground when he said to Cummins "Literally, that's the worst thing I've ever seen in cricket, that."

Broad also said the other day that he has no regrets about not walking and I have no problem with him not walking as its the Umpires job to give him out. Although I'm sure someone like @chaddyrovers would been outraged that Broad did not play within the spirit of the game.

Also to be fair to Broad you are doing him a bit of a disservice he didn't nick it he middled it.

Edited July 3, 2023 by Ewood Ace

[Ewood Ace]

2 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Its come back to spirit of the game and that if you watch the TV coverage Both umpires starting moving and it looks it was over. Neither umpire was watching the play and that's why it had to the refer the 3rd umpire. He made his decision based on the footage he watched which was technical the right decision but was it within the spirit of the game, not for me. That the problem, no doubt we see more of this sort of stuff during the rest of the test series 

What is the spirit of the game?

[AllRoverAsia]

1 hour ago, Ewood Ace said:

He's not the first and he's not that last to get done for ball tampering, Smith was given a disproportionate ban by his own board and has served his time compare that to Atherton when he was caught he continued on as captain into the next test.

We won't be whitewashed, this Aussie team is good but not great.

Some jingoistic nonsense here. The underarm incident was wrong and a clear gap in the rules which was changed after it was exploited for the first time. The Bairstow dismal and similar ones have happened numerous times over the years and the laws have not been changed because it is not exploiting the rules it is just sharp fielding taking advantage of gormless batting, just like when de Grandhomme was run out at Lords last year, or when Brendan McCullum whipped the bails of to run Murali out in 2006. The only person to blame for all 3 of those dismals are the dozy batsmen.

As for the win at all costs attitude an Aussie would point to 32/33 with England exploiting the rules to win at all costs in regard to bodyline. Personally I would disagree with that and believe that bodyline was a fair tactic that used the full potential of a frighteningly quick attack and troubled the greatest player the game will ever see to deliver arguably England's greatest ever series victory. They could also point to the fact that England have the second most players out obstructing the field in international cricket, including the only one in a test match, that is cheating & against the laws of the game. They could also point to Paul Collingwood upholding the appeal to run out Grant Elliott in 2008. Was using Murray Mints to shine the ball riding roughshod over the ethos of the game of cricket and lowering the standards expected from players? Again I personally don't have a problem with it but it is another thing a jingoistic Aussie might point to about England

As for your talk of the ethos of the game England are captained by a man who has been given out obstructing the field after using his hand to stop the ball from hitting the stumps to run him out. When Stokes got a fortunate 4 overthrows of his bat in the World Cup final did he worry about that? Surely if he wanted to uphold the spirit he should have just blocked the next ball out. And don't forget that the England captain has also been fined and banned by his own board for bringing the game into disrepute.

 

 

And don't forget he did the crime and did the time and is fully rehabilitated back into polite society.

I would do a rap sheet on the convicts but can't be arsed.

[chaddyrovers]

Geoffrey Boycott calls for Australia to issue public apology over Jonny Bairstow wicket

Geoffrey Boycott calls for Australia to issue public apology over Jonny Bairstow wicket (msn.com)

Ben Stokes would not take a win in that manner

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/video/sport/ben-stokes-says-he-would-not-take-a-win-‘in-that-manner’-after-lord’s-controversy/vi-AA1dmfSh?ocid=msedgntp&t=0

[jim mk2]

Hopefully the Bairstow incident will have hardened England's attitude and they won't give their wickets away so easily. Someone mentioned earlier England bowlers should consider running out the non-striking batsmen when they walk through the crease. It's not something I'd normally advocate but if England did it now the convicts could have no complaints

Edited July 3, 2023 by jim mk2

[chaddyrovers]

4 minutes ago, Ewood Ace said:

What is the spirit of the game?

Spirit of Cricket | MCC (lords.org)

[Exiled_Rover]

44 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

He actually was stood there waiting for him to do it Mellor, that’s the thing 

As I said, Bairstow scratched his crease and the umpire had started to remove the bowlers cap. It’s all on video. It was a technicality because the word “over” was not called. This does imply though that Bairstow was trying to gain an advantage by moving out his crease. If somebody can show me what that advantage is I’d be grateful 

From where I and millions other Englishmen were sat, the bowl was settled in the wicket keepers gloves 

My problem is the umpires hide behind 'the laws', much like referees hide behind VAR.

The umpire wasn't even watching, he was unclipping the bowler's cap to hand it back to him. All he needs to say is "give over, lads". Instead he was a coward, confirmed they were appealing and sent it upstairs. The fact that Bairstow had scratched his mark was ignored - baffling decision, but that's professional sport for you. 

[Silas]

32 minutes ago, Ewood Ace said:

Carey certainly didn't wait as long as Foakes does here. Now just like with Carey I have no problem with what Foakes does here it is good sharp thinking but I do wonder if those criticising Carey do have a problem?

 

Perfect example of why these are false comparisons.

The batter here is still in shot action stance. Totally legitimate. 

Now if that batter had stood up, grounded his bat, and marked the floor with his foot, I'm 100% sure Foakes wouldn't be looking for the stumping anymore.

But since the batter overbalanced his weight while still in this pose there was an opportunity of a stumping.

It's like chalk and cheese compared to yesterday. Don't know how people are struggling with this. 

[Exiled_Rover]

5 minutes ago, Ewood Ace said:

He was taking the moral high ground when he said to Cummins "Literally, that's the worst thing I've ever seen in cricket, that."

He was also theatrically confirming with the umpire at square leg that the over had been called for the rest of his innings - he was being a pantomime villain at that point to make a point. Much like he asked Cummins if he thought that was out too, when he grassed a C&B from Stokes. 

 

While I'm replying to you I'll also add (rather than finding the exact thing to quote) - they're only a good Australian side, but Test cricket has fallen off so much since the invention of T20 that good is enough. They're by far the best Test side in the world. 

[Dreams of 1995]

Just now, Exiled_Rover said:

My problem is the umpires hide behind 'the laws', much like referees hide behind VAR.

The umpire wasn't even watching, he was unclipping the bowler's cap to hand it back to him. All he needs to say is "give over, lads". Instead he was a coward, confirmed they were appealing and sent it upstairs. The fact that Bairstow had scratched his mark was ignored - baffling decision, but that's professional sport for you. 

Yeah. I was there Exiled - it looked like your classic end of over action at the wicket 

As for Mellor and Ewood I’m really not going to go over and over particulars, especially from other incidents. If you think it was a fair out and sportsmanlike that’s fine. It’s done now and we move on to the next game. We aren’t going to agree 

[jim mk2]

2 minutes ago, Exiled_Rover said:

My problem is the umpires hide behind 'the laws', much like referees hide behind VAR.

The umpire wasn't even watching, he was unclipping the bowler's cap to hand it back to him. All he needs to say is "give over, lads". Instead he was a coward, confirmed they were appealing and sent it upstairs. The fact that Bairstow had scratched his mark was ignored - baffling decision, but that's professional sport for you. 

Could the umpires have over-ruled VAR and said they considered the over to be over and the ball dead? I don't know

On another note, there's a good piece in the Times today by Simon Wilde IIRC saying the opposition's hard work to restore their reputation since Sandpapergate has been thrown away after yesterday's furore. 

 

 

[chaddyrovers]

15 minutes ago, Ewood Ace said:

Broad also said the other day that he has no regrets about not walking and I have no problem with him not walking as its the Umpires job to give him out. Although I'm sure someone like @chaddyrovers would been outraged that Broad did not play within the spirit of the game.

down to the umpire to make the correct decision there and if they don't make the right decision there then the fielding side can appeal to the 3rd Umpire. Also it complete different situation the Bairstow dismissal 

You are trying to mix in every type of dismissal here

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, jim mk2 said:

Could the umpires have over-ruled VAR and said they considered the over to be over and the ball dead? I don't know

On another note, there's a good piece in the Times today by Simon Wilde IIRC saying the opposition's hard work to restore their reputation since Sandpapergate has been thrown away after yesterday's furore. 

 

 

 

21 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Spirit of Cricket | MCC (lords.org)

Is it 'in the spirit of the game' to call someone a 'shit c*nt' like Ollie Robinson did? Not really, but ultimately, who cares. Sport is about winning, not having a beer afterwards.

We didn't take the 'unfair' run off in the World Cup that meant we beat New Zealand even though we could have, so we have no place to talk about 'spirit of the game'. It's not a knock around at Salesbury it's Ashes cricket. One man is to blame for the decision and that is Jonny Bairstow. 

I'm actually glad to see us developing more of an edge, it's been missing from British sport for far too long, and still missing from football. Look at the Argies, Spanish, French, Germans, Italians in football, the South Africans in rugby, you've got to have some bite about you to win in sport. Play hard but keep it within the rules.

EDIT: I also understand that cricket has always been seen as a separate way to conduct yourself, but even in the village levels, it's anything but friendly now.

Edited July 3, 2023 by Mellor Rover

[Ewood Ace]

30 minutes ago, Silas said:

Perfect example of why these are false comparisons.

The batter here is still in shot action stance. Totally legitimate. 

Now if that batter had stood up, grounded his bat, and marked the floor with his foot, I'm 100% sure Foakes wouldn't be looking for the stumping anymore.

But since the batter overbalanced his weight while still in this pose there was an opportunity of a stumping.

It's like chalk and cheese compared to yesterday. Don't know how people are struggling with this. 

It's not a false comparison as both player were out stumped. I agree it is a totally legitimate dismissal just as yesterdays was. The batsman had gone through with his shot and it's a good few seconds after the shot is played and the ball settles in Foakes' gloves before that he take the bails of. The batsman is waiting for when he thinks the ball is dead to move his foot. Carey released the ball much quicker than Foakes and before Bairstow had even left his crease. One of @Dreams of 1995 arguments was that the ball had settled in Carey's gloves well I don't think it had but if it had then it had certainly settled in Foakes'.

What people some people are struggling with is being one eyed.

32 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Spirit of Cricket | MCC (lords.org)

The spirit of cricket is a myth, there is nothing that there to suggest there was anything untoward with yesterdays dismissal.

27 minutes ago, jim mk2 said:

Could the umpires have over-ruled VAR and said they considered the over to be over and the ball dead? I don't know

On another note, there's a good piece in the Times today by Simon Wilde IIRC saying the opposition's hard work to restore their reputation since Sandpapergate has been thrown away after yesterday's furore. 

But they didn't consider it dead if they had over would have been called.

If they become the Aussie first team to win here in 22 years they won't care. Unlike England they care about results.

29 minutes ago, Exiled_Rover said:

While I'm replying to you I'll also add (rather than finding the exact thing to quote) - they're only a good Australian side, but Test cricket has fallen off so much since the invention of T20 that good is enough. They're by far the best Test side in the world. 

I'm not sure I'd say by far I mean in the last 2.5 years they've lost home and away to India in 4 match test series. They've got a good balanced bowling attack for English conditions but outside of Smith their batting isn't anything special. Warner has a poor record in England, Khawaja is solid but nothing spectacular, Head can't play the short ball and Green doesn't look like he can do much other than field.

Edited July 3, 2023 by Ewood Ace

[Exiled_Rover]

21 minutes ago, jim mk2 said:

Could the umpires have over-ruled VAR and said they considered the over to be over and the ball dead? I don't know

On another note, there's a good piece in the Times today by Simon Wilde IIRC saying the opposition's hard work to restore their reputation since Sandpapergate has been thrown away after yesterday's furore. 

 

 

I'm sure they could have if they'd wanted to - I bet there would have been minimal complaint from the Australians. However it's just easier to put the decision in somebody else's hands isn't it?