GS250
Member
- Joined
- 18 Mar 2019
- Messages
- 1,025
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.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.Would Bairstow be omitted from the squad or who would be left out?
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.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.
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.I’d love to see Rehan Ahmed given a chance, but it’ll be Moeen if they do pick a spinner
We all know it was within the laws of the game. We also all know it wasn't within the spirit of the game.I don't see Bairstow's dismissal as being even slightly controversial. The umpires made the right decision
No, we all don't.We all know it was within the laws of the game. We also all know it wasn't within the spirit of the game.
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.No, we all don't.
We all know it was within the laws of the game. We also all know it wasn't within the spirit of the game.
I’d love to see Rehan Ahmed given a chance, but it’ll be Moeen if they do pick a spinner
This is interesting. Bairstow trying to run Labuschagne out during Australia’s first innings. What goes around comes around
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.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.
If we do it then it is professionalism. If the Aussies do it then it is basically cheating.I do find it rather ironic the English team are huffing and puffing about the 'Spirit of the game'
yes, that is my view as well.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.
The Labuschagne example is completely different, as he had been batting out of his crease, and therefore needed to hurry back to touch in.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.
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.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.
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!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.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.
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!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.
As cyclist Mark Cavendish said to a television interviewer 'Never ever congratulate me for finishing 2nd....'.....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.
Whereas Rishi Sunak has only broken the spirit of half the population (so far).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……
I suspect it is nearer three quarters. (The "half" who are not tory supporters and half of those who are!).Whereas Rishi Sunak has only broken the spirit of half the population.