Cricket

[GS250]

Would Bairstow be omitted from the squad or who would be left out?

Pope for me. Our weakest batsman at present. One of those who's had plenty of chances but just hasn't really nailed down his place.

 

[SteveM70]

I’d love to see Rehan Ahmed given a chance, but it’ll be Moeen if they do pick a spinner

https://twitter.com/samdjodan/status/1675575411344908288?s=46&t=_YJpC0NnDFgt_77zD1Eteg

This is interesting. Bairstow trying to run Labuschagne out during Australia’s first innings. What goes around comes around

 

[Busaholic]

Pope for me. Our weakest batsman at present. One of those who's had plenty of chances but just hasn't really nailed down his place.

Pope has a fourth innings average of 15, against 40 odd in the first innings i.e. a matchwinner he is not. It's by far the worst discrepancy amongst current regular batsmen. He may be injured anyway.

I’d love to see Rehan Ahmed given a chance, but it’ll be Moeen if they do pick a spinner

Do we know Mooen has made himself available? I hope he hasn't, so England have to make alternative plans. It is no longer remembered that the 'Ball of the Last Century' was bowled by a rookie leg spinner brought into the test team midway through an Ashes series with a pretty ordinary test record prior to that. Shane Warne and Australia never looked back. If England are to win the next test they have to attack.It could be that Rehan would make more runs than Mooen too.

 

[DarloRich]

I don't see Bairstow's dismissal as being even slightly controversial. The umpires made the right decision

We all know it was within the laws of the game. We also all know it wasn't within the spirit of the game.

 

[Busaholic]

We all know it was within the laws of the game. We also all know it wasn't within the spirit of the game.

No, we all don't.

 

[DarloRich]

No, we all don't.

We do. What is expected under "the spirit of the game" is clear. It is about behaviour and standards and playing the game the right way.

We might think it fuddy duddy but it remains an important part of cricket.

The australians were entirely within the laws of the game by gaining a wicket the way they did but they were also immediatly wrong to do so. They know that as well.

They might not care but they know it. Was it the same Cricket Australia going on about spirit of the game and playing the right way when they were caught cheating?

 

[rangersac]

We all know it was within the laws of the game. We also all know it wasn't within the spirit of the game.

If Carey had've gathered the ball and stopped, waited for Bairstow to leave his crease and then thrown the stumps down I would agree with you, not in the spirit of the game. As it stands, he gathered and threw in one action so the ball was still live. Bairstow was in his crease when the ball was thrown and was dozy enough to walk out whilst the ball was in motion, that's no fault of Carey's.

I’d love to see Rehan Ahmed given a chance, but it’ll be Moeen if they do pick a spinner

https://twitter.com/samdjodan/status/1675575411344908288?s=46&t=_YJpC0NnDFgt_77zD1Eteg

This is interesting. Bairstow trying to run Labuschagne out during Australia’s first innings. What goes around comes around

This is exactly the same. Bairstow receives the ball and throws immediately. Difference is Labuschange is actually watching the ball rather than looking at the umpire and stays in his crease, rather than assuming the ball is dead. Basic cricket 101, taught kids in under 12s and such scenarios occur every weekend on cricket fields across the country. Had the bowler been a spinner, Bairstow would never have wandered out of his ground. Had the fielder been anyone but the keeper, likewise. It was an incorrect assumption on his part that the keeper’s gloves mean dead ball, but this ball was returned to the stumps in one movement.

Really it should be the last nail in Bairstow's coffin. Dumping Foakes was big call, and in the last two tests Jonny has dropped catches, missed stumpings and given up a pile of extras which arguably are the difference between England winning both tests.

 

[birchesgreen]

If it had been the other way around and England had got out one of the top order Aussie batters that way i wonder what the reaction would have been?

 

[Pakenhamtrain]

I do find it rather ironic the English team are huffing and puffing about the 'Spirit of the game'

https://www.news.com.au/sport/cricket/englands-hypocrisy-laid-bare-after-cheating-claims-during-second-test/news-story/406ad362e13f5865bbaddc754e179837

The saying about people throwing stones in glass houses comes to mind.
I don't believe Stokes would have withdrawn in the same situation.

Sports satirist Titus O'Reily nails it

England Cricket Team: It’s not the spirit of cricket if it happens to us

The English cricket team and its fans are having one of the most enjoyable meltdowns in sporting history following Jonny Bairstow forgetting he was in t

www.titusoreily.com

 

[DarloRich]

If Carey had've gathered the ball and stopped, waited for Bairstow to leave his crease and then thrown the stumps down I would agree with you, not in the spirit of the game. As it stands, he gathered and threw in one action so the ball was still live. Bairstow was in his crease when the ball was thrown and was dozy enough to walk out whilst the ball was in motion, that's no fault of Carey's.

I don't disagree - it was fully within the laws of the game. I don't think it was cricket to behave in that way.

I do find it rather ironic the English team are huffing and puffing about the 'Spirit of the game'

If we do it then it is professionalism. If the Aussies do it then it is basically cheating.

 

[ainsworth74]

With the Bairstow dismissal I take the same view that I do with a Mankad dismissal at the non-strikers end. 100% out and the batsman should have stayed in his crease until the bowler bowled the ball (or until the ball was dead in Bairstow's case) so only has themselves to blame. But, in my view, the fielding side should tell the batsman to watch themselves ("You're leaving your ground a little early there mate!") before doing it. After that? As far as I'm concerned any "spirit of cricket" concerns are fully addressed. Without a warning of that nature I think it's sharp practice.

Though I have to say if it had been England I don't think there would have half as much opprobrium as there has been and the media would have been talking about Bairstow's "quick thinking behind the stumps", etc etc.

 

[DarloRich]

But, in my view, the fielding side should tell the batsman to watch themselves ("You're leaving your ground a little early there mate!") before doing it. After that? As far as I'm concerned any "spirit of cricket" concerns are fully addressed. Without a warning of that nature I think it's sharp practice.

yes, that is my view as well.

 

[Mikey C]

This is exactly the same. Bairstow receives the ball and throws immediately. Difference is Labuschange is actually watching the ball rather than looking at the umpire and stays in his crease, rather than assuming the ball is dead. Basic cricket 101, taught kids in under 12s and such scenarios occur every weekend on cricket fields across the country. Had the bowler been a spinner, Bairstow would never have wandered out of his ground. Had the fielder been anyone but the keeper, likewise. It was an incorrect assumption on his part that the keeper’s gloves mean dead ball, but this ball was returned to the stumps in one movement.

The Labuschagne example is completely different, as he had been batting out of his crease, and therefore needed to hurry back to touch in.

Bairstow had been within his crease the whole time, and only moved out because he genuinely though the ball was dead.

 

[GS250]

I find it embarrassing that sections of the English sporting public are still whining about this. Proud an Englishman that I am you have to be even handed when judging situations like this. Spirit of the game didn't stop Broad not walking when he clearly edged that chance in 2013.

 

[SteveM70]

The Labuschagne example is completely different, as he had been batting out of his crease, and therefore needed to hurry back to touch in.

Bairstow had been within his crease the whole time, and only moved out because he genuinely though the ball was dead.

The reason they were out of their ground is pretty much irrelevant - they both were, they both needed to get back, only one was aware enough to do it.

 

[prod_pep]

It was casual and naïve play from Bairstow, simple as that. Carey threw the ball at the stumps immediately after catching it, before Bairstow had even begun to leave the crease, so there's nothing underhand about it as far as I'm concerned. Bairstow just carelessly walked away and didn't even look back to check Carey had the ball. It is hardly up to the Australians to warn their rivals in advance about something like this as far as I'm concerned. Bairstow's had an abject series with the gloves and this is another big mistake to add to the charge sheet.

I thought Broad's antics were entirely predictable. He's a great cricketer but I've never warmed to him, and his own record of sportsmanship is questionable. Carey won't be remembered just for that incident mate, no chance.

 

[Howardh]

The umpire at the bowlers end was beginning to look away, down at a cap (I think) that was ready to be passed back to the bowler; all before the stumps were thrown down. Therefore, even if he didn't call "over" his movements as the keeper gathered the ball were consistent with the over being completed and the ball dead.

I've no idea whether Bairstow noticed that, but if I were batting and saw the umpire look away to do other stuff I'd assume the over had ended. So basically it's the umpire that was out of order, not calling over and not concentrating on the ball after the keeper had played it. he should have said "sorry guys, my movements were that the ball was dead even though I didn't call, I ask you to withdraw your appeal - if not I'll have to reject it".

Doesn't prevent Bairstow acting a right dozy herbert though.

I saw all that on about the fifth Sky replay, everyone would have seen it if in the first instance Sky (and other TV companies) weren't obsessed wihth "ball tracking" so they zoom in on the ball as it reaches the batsman, so you miss the umpire and bowler - they often call no-ball or wides unseen by the viewer, and in this instant one would have seen the umpire's movements after the ball passed the stumps.

 

[Mikey C]

The reason they were out of their ground is pretty much irrelevant - they both were, they both needed to get back, only one was aware enough to do it.

Of course the 2 scenarios were different, one was out of his crease to play a shot and had to then get back, the other had been in his crease the entire time when playing his shot, and only wandered out of his crease because he thought the ball was dead.

 

[Howardh]

Of course the 2 scenarios were different, one was out of his crease to play a shot and had to then get back, the other had been in his crease the entire time when playing his shot, and only wandered out of his crease because he thought the ball was dead.

As I wrote above, it's the umpire's fault for not calling, and looking away the moment the ball was released. Therefore he should have given the benefit to the batsman and dismissed the appeal. Although the argument would be because he hadn't called over, even though he (like Bairstow) had dozed off, the ball was still live....and therefore would have been "live" as the players changed ends!

 

[Busaholic]

Of course the 2 scenarios were different, one was out of his crease to play a shot and had to then get back, the other had been in his crease the entire time when playing his shot, and only wandered out of his crease because he thought the ball was dead.

Bairstow didn't think the ball was dead, he just didn't think, full stop, because apparently he'd already done this a few times. I don't have Sky, so can only rely on what has been said there. By the way, the Third Umpire, having spoken to the 'live' umpire, confirmed the ball hadn't been called dead. There really is nothing more to see or say here. Those MCC members should be thrown in the duck pond, or whatever they do to the breed.

 

[Darandio]

Bairstow didn't think the ball was dead, he just didn't think, full stop, because apparently he'd already done this a few times. I don't have Sky, so can only rely on what has been said there. By the way, the Third Umpire, having spoken to the 'live' umpire, confirmed the ball hadn't been called dead.

The same 'live' umpire that was already looking down and was removing the bowlers glasses from the cap, he wasn't paying attention and was acting as if the ball was dead. As I said yesterday it was just a poor show all round.

 

[Busaholic]

The same 'live' umpire that was already looking down and was removing the bowlers glasses from the cap, he wasn't paying attention and was acting as if the ball was dead. As I said yesterday it was just a poor show all round.

I don't disagree, the umpire is probably covering his back, but, crucially for those who want to make it a Dallas style conspiracy or something, Carey begins the whole shenanigans a frame or so before the 'live' umpire movement. I blame the CIA personally!

 

[dangie]

From the BBC:
Rishi Sunak has accused Australia of breaking the spirit of cricket over the controversial dismissal of England's Jonny Bairstow on Sunday.

Well that’s that then……

 

[birchesgreen]

"Spirit of cricket", yawn. Pro sport is a competition. I suppose "spirit" can make you a good loser, but show me a good loser and i'll show you a loser.

 

[SteveM70]

 

[dangie]

.....Pro sport is a competition. I suppose "spirit" can make you a good loser, but show me a good loser and i'll show you a loser.

As cyclist Mark Cavendish said to a television interviewer 'Never ever congratulate me for finishing 2nd....'

 

[Busaholic]

From the BBC:
Rishi Sunak has accused Australia of breaking the spirit of cricket over the controversial dismissal of England's Jonny Bairstow on Sunday.

Well that’s that then……

Whereas Rishi Sunak has only broken the spirit of half the population (so far).

 

[Peterthegreat]

Whereas Rishi Sunak has only broken the spirit of half the population.

I suspect it is nearer three quarters. (The "half" who are not tory supporters and half of those who are!).

 

[75A]

Questions
1) Let's say that Carey didn't catch the ball (it's now called 'doing a Jonny' and it went for 4 byes, would England have said that's not in the spirit of the game and declined them?
2) If Bairstow had done the same thing to say Steve Smith, what would the crowds reaction have been?
3) Have you looked at the at fault extras for the game?
Australia conceded 11 No Balls, 9 Byes & 12 wides a total of 32
England conceded 18 No Balls, 26 Byes & 7 wides a total of 51
Roll on Thursday, can't wait.

 

[rangersac]

There seems to be a general acceptance that what Carey did was completely lawful, and normal practice by wicketkeepers at every level of the game from juniors right up to international matches. There was no pause in his actions, no attempt to wait to see if a foot was lifted like in numerous stumping situations by keepers when spinners are bowling, and at the time he released the ball the umpires had not moved, and crucially had not called 'over' therefore there's no question that the ball was dead. Incidentally I think that the idea that because it's the end of the over makes a difference is a rather interesting one. You might consider that between balls in an over it's not readily obvious when the ball is dead whereas at the end of an over it's absolutely obvious. It's when the umpire says 'over' which is pretty black and white. Anyway I digress, and getting back to the point of Carey's actions being completely normal. If we accept this and many ex-professionals from both England and Australia have, then the argument about whether it was a justifiable dismissal comes down the fact that Bairstow was essentially naive, was not paying close enough attention, and made an assumption that the ball was dead without actually checking that it was, either with the umpire, or with the opposition. So in essence Cummins should've rescinded the appeal and given Bairstow a warning because he made a stupid mistake. That's a pretty thin argument for mine. Are there any other sports where because an opponent has made a dopey mistake there's an expectation that they should get a second chance?