OT - The Ashes

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,911]

4 minutes ago, Aggy said:

I’ve been involved in games where we’ve warned a batsman at the non-striker’s end for backing up too much. Some where we’ve warned first, some where the bowler has run him out and then withdrawn the appeal.

I don’t think this is that similar. Bairstow isn’t trying to get any advantage. And I do think if I was on the fielding team I’d have withdrawn the appeal. But I wasn’t ever playing test match cricket, on day 5 of an important second test, in an ashes series, where this wicket gets us into the long tail and probably wins us the match. Which brings me back to the point - from the batsman’s view, just don’t let that situation arise.

That's what I said, and the fact that he clearly wasn't trying to gain an advantage is what it makes it even worse than a Mankad. 

[Branston Pickle 3,750]

12 minutes ago, Aggy said:

I’ve been involved in games where we’ve warned a batsman at the non-striker’s end for backing up too much. Some where we’ve warned first, some where the bowler has run him out and then withdrawn the appeal.

I don’t think this is that similar. Bairstow isn’t trying to get any advantage. And I do think if I was on the fielding team I’d have withdrawn the appeal. But I wasn’t ever playing test match cricket, on day 5 of an important second test, in an ashes series, where this wicket gets us into the long tail and probably wins us the match. Which brings me back to the point - from the batsman’s view, just don’t let that situation arise.

 

You’ve pretty much said above precisely what I have said all along - they should have warned him. I’m not sure why/where you thought otherwise.

[Aggy 766]

10 minutes ago, Branston Pickle said:

You’ve pretty much said above precisely what I have said all along - they should have warned him. I’m not sure why/where you thought otherwise.

Where did I say I did think otherwise?

My full first post is repeated below and says virtually exactly the same. The only thing I’ve otherwise said is that Ricardo’s points about Bairstow turning around, grounding his bat etc are incorrect - he doesn’t look round, doesn’t ground his bat, he scratches very quickly and walks off without even checking the keeper has the ball. You then got upset and suggested cricket wasn’t for me. 

 

“Can’t get too worked up about the Bairstow “stumping”. The keeper picks it up and throws in one movement, he isn’t waiting for Bairstow to move out of his crease, and it’s split second - Bairstow really shouldn’t have been walking out of his crease at that point. Aussies could have called him back, but it’s like when people get slightly harsh second yellows for silly challenges they didn’t need to make - I haven’t got much sympathy if you put yourself in that position in the first place.

If Bairstow had been batting out of his crease then absolutely no issue with it. It is slightly underhand to try and get him if they’ve just seen him walking down a bit early between balls previously - a bit like Mankading - you’d think a quick word in his ear about it first would have been preferable. But like I say, if Bairstow is switched on, it doesn’t happen. That’s the bottom line.”

Edited July 3, 2023 by Aggy

[Branston Pickle 3,750]

17 minutes ago, Aggy said:

Where did I say I did think otherwise?

My full first post is repeated below and says virtually exactly the same. The only thing I’ve otherwise said is that Ricardo’s points about Bairstow turning around, grounding his bat etc are incorrect - he doesn’t look round, doesn’t ground his bat, he scratches very quickly and walks off without even checking the keeper has the ball. You then got upset and suggested cricket wasn’t for me. 

It’s very strange to even vaguely suggest I got ‘upset’. That’s frankly quite ridiculous.

I do firmly believe any side should have warned the player  - and I think that is what riled the MCC members who never normally get bothered about anything. 

[How I Wrote Elastic Man 1,201]

I'd like to think that we are all on the  same page, more or less 

1 - Bairstow was not seeking an advantage. How could he be? But he was a bit naïve.

2 - If Australia had the hump with what Bairstow was doing, then in the spirit of the game they should have warned him. What they did was worse than a Mankad, where there is a potential advantage to be gained.

3 - The umpires were asleep and needed to ask their mate with a telly what had happened.

4 - Australia were the better team throughout the match, deserved to win, and only a fired up Stokes got us in a position where we had a sniff of victory.

5 - No one can be sure what would've happened if the Bairstow incident hadn't occurred.

6 - The Aussies will get a slightly less than friendly reception on the rest of the tour 

Onto the next test, if we can win that we are back in the series. I think Australia are the stronger team, but England currently has a shock value that could lead to victory 

 

[Branston Pickle 3,750]

14 minutes ago, How I Wrote Elastic Man said:

I'd like to think that we are all on the  same page, more or less 

1 - Bairstow was not seeking an advantage. How could he be? But he was a bit naïve.

2 - If Australia had the hump with what Bairstow was doing, then in the spirit of the game they should have warned him. What they did was worse than a Mankad, where there is a potential advantage to be gained.

3 - The umpires were asleep and needed to ask their mate with a telly what had happened.

4 - Australia were the better team throughout the match, deserved to win, and only a fired up Stokes got us in a position where we had a sniff of victory.

5 - No one can be sure what would've happened if the Bairstow incident hadn't occurred.

6 - The Aussies will get a slightly less than friendly reception on the rest of the tour 

Onto the next test, if we can win that we are back in the series. I think Australia are the stronger team, but England currently has a shock value that could lead to victory 

 

Not far off, though 4 is ‘yes and no’ - England won day 2 but were victims of their own stupidity and we ought to have been at least close to parity.

It’s quite strange how the next test starts in only a couple of days - they don’t get a huge rest between games these days and I wonder if it willbe a bit much for Anderson.  One certainty is that pt6 is a nice understatement, it’s a shame Headingley only holds 18000-odd  but I’m sure the Yorkshire folk will make up for it. 

Edited July 3, 2023 by Branston Pickle

[Indy 3,352]

For me I think you can now remove “the spirit of the game” from cricket with the Aussies, so from now on you throw down the stumps at any opportunity and ask the question.

It will now mean any advantage will and should be used. End of cricket as a game of good grace, it’s not like the Aussies haven’t tampered with the ball in previous games, in years gone by, they really are just a bunch cheating scumbags and need to be treated as such.

 

Edited July 3, 2023 by Indy

[Taiwan Canary 151]

What's telling for me is that I've not seen one Aussie come out in the media and hold their hands up and say, "Sorry we shouldn't have done that." From this you know what their mentality is. 

[Ken Hairy 3,812]

3 hours ago, Taiwan Canary said:

What's telling for me is that I've not seen one Aussie come out in the media and hold their hands up and say, "Sorry we shouldn't have done that." From this you know what their mentality is. 

Brad Hogg did, also didn't Ponting say it wasn't right?

[horsefly 4,326]

10 hours ago, Aggy said:

I’ve been involved in games where we’ve warned a batsman at the non-striker’s end for backing up too much. Some where we’ve warned first, some where the bowler has run him out and then withdrawn the appeal.

I don’t think this is that similar. Bairstow isn’t trying to get any advantage. And I do think if I was on the fielding team I’d have withdrawn the appeal. But I wasn’t ever playing test match cricket, on day 5 of an important second test, in an ashes series, where this wicket gets us into the long tail and probably wins us the match. Which brings me back to the point - from the batsman’s view, just don’t let that situation arise.

 

So you do now want each ball to be called dead before a batsman moves out of his crease. No amount of stamping your foot (as Bairstow did) or tapping your bat behind the crease can now be considered as signalling that the batsman is in. What a sad day for the sport if that becomes necessary.

[horsefly 4,326]

9 hours ago, Indy said:

For me I think you can now remove “the spirit of the game” from cricket with the Aussies, so from now on you throw down the stumps at any opportunity and ask the question.

It will now mean any advantage will and should be used. End of cricket as a game of good grace, it’s not like the Aussies haven’t tampered with the ball in previous games, in years gone by, they really are just a bunch cheating scumbags and need to be treated as such.

 

Sadly I think you're right. I would add just one caveat. I think when Carey originally threw down the stumps in one fluid movement it was a genuine attempt to catch Bairstow out of his crease IF he had fallen forward in his movement to avoid the bouncer. As it stood that was good instinctive wicketkeeping. The FACT that Bairstow had not fallen forward, and had actually grounded his foot to indicate he was in, should have been ample evidence for the Aussies to withdraw their appeal. That they didn't was dreadful sportsmanship, and a great detriment to the game. Observation of the fundamental principles of the "spirit" of the game have always been essential to its flow and enjoyment. The thought that each batsman must now seek official reassurance that the ball is dead before they move from their crease is truly an appalling prospect. 

[Conrad 179]

Where does sportsmanship come into professional sport? I am am afraid that sportsmanship no longer has a part to play in Cricket, as it doesn't in any other professional sport. Winning is the aim, and at all cost. Will we see a 'Di Canio' moment ever again? 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

2 hours ago, Conrad said:

Where does sportsmanship come into professional sport? I am am afraid that sportsmanship no longer has a part to play in Cricket, as it doesn't in any other professional sport. Winning is the aim, and at all cost. Will we see a 'Di Canio' moment ever again? 

Even in amateur sport, winning at all costs is the dressing room mantra rather than go out and enjoy yourselves.

[horsefly 4,326]

Excellent comments from Stuart Broad on the issue https://www.msn.com/en-gb/sport/cricket/stuart-broad-reveals-what-he-told-pat-cummins-after-jonny-bairstow-dismissal/ar-AA1doHMl?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=7ec50867737c4a36bd85774c013026b0&ei=22

[Jim Smith 2,365]

I don’t agree with mankads snd as others have said I think this is worse because he’s not even attempting to run or gain any advantage. If he was batting a foot out of his crease like some other batsmen have been it would be different. But the Aussies have clearly watched his post delivery/over routine and seen an opportunity for a cheap wicket and have taken it.

Like the mankad it’s legal. It’s also out. But it’s not the way I want to see my team play and I’ve never, ever seen a lords crowd react like that to anything which I think tells you all you need to know about how the wider cricketing public in this country saw it. If people start doing that and mankads all the time then the game will descend into something of a farce.

Despite a great effort from Stokes (although don’t understand why he passed up so many easy singles once we only needed 80 off to win) not a great week for test cricket what with this incident, the Aussies apparently not understanding the meaning of the word “catch” and both sides tedious short ball and spread field tactics which I fear will now dominate the rest of the series and end up with a law change. I also don’t really like booing and aggro at test matches and slightly fear for what the atmosphere may be like at Headingley which in my experience is already a ground where the atmosphere can get close to the line unlike Edgbaston where it tends to stay good natured. 

 

 

[Jim Smith 2,365]

5 hours ago, horsefly said:

Sadly I think you're right. I would add just one caveat. I think when Carey originally threw down the stumps in one fluid movement it was a genuine attempt to catch Bairstow out of his crease IF he had fallen forward in his movement to avoid the bouncer. As it stood that was good instinctive wicketkeeping. The FACT that Bairstow had not fallen forward, and had actually grounded his foot to indicate he was in, should have been ample evidence for the Aussies to withdraw their appeal. That they didn't was dreadful sportsmanship, and a great detriment to the game. Observation of the fundamental principles of the "spirit" of the game have always been essential to its flow and enjoyment. The thought that each batsman must now seek official reassurance that the ball is dead before they move from their crease is truly an appalling prospect. 

It wasn’t. Cummins said they’d observed him walking down the pitch after previous leaves. They saw that and it was therefore pre meditated. You can see his routine is to scratch his mark with his foot to effectively say “in” and then go and do some gardening. He does it a bit too quickly it seems but there is no intent there to take a run or anything. 

[crispeduk 282]

23 hours ago, TheGunnShow said:

Can see a Headingley crowd being incredibly fired up for this one in the light of the media circus this incident has generated.

Yes and especially with Bairstow being one of their own, Headingley will be seething before the toss and red-faced furious after it, whoever wins the toss. If the Aussies thought Lord's was an angry place, they've seen nothing yet. Pretty sure it's a wind-up but there's supposedly a secret plan to smuggle the gift of a packet of sandpaper into the away dressing room on Thursday morning - would be wonderful if it's true and it succeeds. 

[horsefly 4,326]

33 minutes ago, crispeduk said:

Pretty sure it's a wind-up but there's supposedly a secret plan to smuggle the gift of a packet of sandpaper into the away dressing room on Thursday morning - would be wonderful if it's true and it succeeds. 

No need to bother, they'll bring their own.

[Branston Pickle 3,750]

The “fun” restarts tomorrow…anyone care to guess what might happen?!  Hopefully we can use the sense of injustice (real or otherwise - let’s park that for now!) to our advantage.

[Midlands Yellow 4,122]

18 minutes ago, Branston Pickle said:

The “fun” restarts tomorrow…anyone care to guess what might happen?!  Hopefully we can use the sense of injustice (real or otherwise - let’s park that for now!) to our advantage.

England to beat them handsomely.

[How I Wrote Elastic Man 1,201]

Good to see Mark Wood available and selected 🙂

[Branston Pickle 3,750]

6 minutes ago, How I Wrote Elastic Man said:

Good to see Mark Wood available and selected 🙂

Hadn’t realised we’d named our XI already - I think the selection makes reasonable sense, gives more bowling options (hopefully) without weakening the batting too much.  With Brook at 3, you feel he needs to play a lot more…let’s say ‘responsibly’

[BroadstairsR 2,235]

17 minutes ago, How I Wrote Elastic Man said:

Good to see Mark Wood available and selected 🙂

Yes. This has turned into a virtual bodyline series, so a bit of pace(96mph) won't go amiss.

The batting is strengthened immensely with both Ali and Woakes included, whilst Lawrence for Pope doesn't seem to have weakened that position considering Pope's average contribution so far.

Woakes, so often unfairly left out, has a point to make .... yet again. Useful with both ball and bat and tough. 

Edited July 5, 2023 by BroadstairsR

[Branston Pickle 3,750]

3 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

Yes. This has turned into a virtual bodyline series, so a bit of pace won't go amiss.

The batting is strengthened immensely with both Ali and Woakes included, whilst Lawrence for Pope doesn't seem to have weakened that position considering Pope's average contribution so far.

Woakes, so often unfairly left out, has a point to make .... yet again. Useful with both ball and bat and tough. 

You seem to be mistaken - Lawrence isn’t playing: the changes are Tongue, Anderson and Pope out, Wood, Woakes and Ali in; Brook is batting at 3

[BroadstairsR 2,235]

Just now, Branston Pickle said:

You seem to be mistaken - Lawrence isn’t playing: the changes are Tongue, Anderson and Pope out, Wood, Woakes and Ali in; Brook is batting at 3

Yes . Had just realised before I saw your post. It had been widely predicted that Lawrence would step into Pope's shoes.

Or was it subconscious wishful thinking that we could get away with  a 12 to beat this lot.

The batting is still strengthened though.

[Branston Pickle 3,750]

Just now, BroadstairsR said:

Yes . Had just realised before I saw your post. It had been widely predicted that Lawrence would step into Pope's shoes.

Or was it subconscious wishful thinking that we could get away with  a 12 to beat this lot.

The batting is still strengthened though.

Ha - we might not get away with playing 12, worth trying though!  Not sure I’d say it’s strengthened, but isn’t weakened by too much - whilst giving better bowling options.  We do need Mo and Woakes to bat well.

[How I Wrote Elastic Man 1,201]

26 minutes ago, Branston Pickle said:

Hadn’t realised we’d named our XI already - I think the selection makes reasonable sense, gives more bowling options (hopefully) without weakening the batting too much.  With Brook at 3, you feel he needs to play a lot more…let’s say ‘responsibly’

Agree 

I'd like to see him play positively, but with a little more caution.

I think it can be done, England were more circumspect for much of the 2nd innings of the last test (until Stokes kicked off), while still scoring at a decent rate 

[Aggy 766]

10 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

Yes . Had just realised before I saw your post. It had been widely predicted that Lawrence would step into Pope's shoes.

Or was it subconscious wishful thinking that we could get away with  a 12 to beat this lot.

The batting is still strengthened though.

The tail certainly looks a lot shorter - but we’ve effectively swapped a top order batsman for an all rounder in Ali. 
 

Saw an interesting stat earlier :

 

In this ashes series England have a higher collective batting average than Australia. Both teams have lost 38 wickets (England declared in the first test 8 wickets down and Australia won by two wickets), England have scored 1260 runs off the bat and Australia 1245, making England’s collective average 33.1 and Australia’s 32.7. 

This England team are the 274th team in men’s test history to be 2-0 down in a series and the first to ever have a higher collective batting average.

The difference is England have bowled 118 extras compared to Australia’s 58.

 

[How I Wrote Elastic Man 1,201]

26 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

Yes. This has turned into a virtual bodyline series, so a bit of pace(96mph) won't go amiss.

The batting is strengthened immensely with both Ali and Woakes included, whilst Lawrence for Pope doesn't seem to have weakened that position considering Pope's average contribution so far.

Woakes, so often unfairly left out, has a point to make .... yet again. Useful with both ball and bat and tough. 

Good to have some wheels in the team 

I think the short pitched stuff in the last test was due to the ball not doing anything when full, which isn't a great situation. I was listening to Guerilla cricket for much of the match, and they were certainly unimpressed 

 

[How I Wrote Elastic Man 1,201]

5 minutes ago, Aggy said:

The tail certainly looks a lot shorter - but we’ve effectively swapped a top order batsman for an all rounder in Ali. 
 

Saw an interesting stat earlier :

 

In this ashes series England have a higher collective batting average than Australia. Both teams have lost 38 wickets (England declared in the first test 8 wickets down and Australia won by two wickets), England have scored 1260 runs off the bat and Australia 1245, making England’s collective average 33.1 and Australia’s 32.7. 

This England team are the 274th team in men’s test history to be 2-0 down in a series and the first to ever have a higher collective batting average.

The difference is England have bowled 118 extras compared to Australia’s 58.

 

That has been a big problem, and needs to be sorted out for the rest of the series