Cricket chat
A Salty Dog wrote:I've not followed Australian cricket for many years due to the increasingly boorish and arrogant on field behaviour starting over 20 years ago.
Also, if you set your standards based on the actions of others, it then becomes a race to the bottom. It has been reported that things had improved under Cummings, but I still can't get overly interested. This incident has created headlines, so it's been hard to avoid.
It's worthy of note that Bairstow took evasive action and in doing so, did not offer a shot. Had Carey missed the ball and it had gone to the boundary, byes would not have been registered and nothing added to the score.
Dead Ball. Which is what I suspect Bairstow was thinking.
The question is "How or why did the ball become live again?"
In my opinion, Cummings could have enhanced his reputation and called Bairstow back, but in the words of Vince Lombardi, "Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing".
Sportsmanship is almost dead.
Fair comments Salty Dog.
Easy answer, the ball wasn’t dead. AW.
A Salty Dog wrote:I've not followed Australian cricket for many years due to the increasingly boorish and arrogant on field behaviour starting over 20 years ago.
Also, if you set your standards based on the actions of others, it then becomes a race to the bottom. It has been reported that things had improved under Cummings, but I still can't get overly interested. This incident has created headlines, so it's been hard to avoid.
It's worthy of note that Bairstow took evasive action and in doing so, did not offer a shot. Had Carey missed the ball and it had gone to the boundary, byes would not have been registered and nothing added to the score.
Dead Ball. Which is what I suspect Bairstow was thinking.
The question is "How or why did the ball become live again?"
In my opinion, Cummings could have enhanced his reputation and called Bairstow back, but in the words of Vince Lombardi, "Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing".
Sportsmanship is almost dead.
Tend to agree as well, almost enough to make you go for whoever is playing them. Knew of some of the eventual stars when growing up in some of our sports codes and the behaviour was appalling. I assume everyone else's team is similar now, too. If Pat is getting rid of this all the better.
ASD, good point, in general I agree. There’s not much ‘spirit’ left in the game. I see that in the occasional social grade bash matches I play.
However, the complaints by Bairstow, Stokes and the English press muppet gallery ring hollow when they did exactly the same thing IN THE SAME MATCH. Except Bairstow (!) missed the stumps, and Labuschange was still behind the crease anyway.
It’s worth noting that the game of cricket is deemed to be alive whilst one or both teams are engaged, when the umpire is convinced that both teams are now longer engaged, over is called.
To reinforce this point it’s also worth mentioning that when a DRS is initiated by a team on the sixth ball of an over and is sent upstairs to the third umpire for a decision, the game is still active, both teams anxiously awaiting the outcome but still the game is alive, decision is handed down, on field umpire keeps or changes the decision and then calls over.
Another example is if a team throws at the stumps and misses and goes for extra runs but a fielder stops it before the boundary and this goes on for ten minutes, the game is still active and only becomes inactive when the umpire calls over. There is no time limit to the duration of an over. It’s not over til it’s over. Over and out. AW.
Few points:
- The other recent incidents being brought up in defence of our Bairstow stumping simply don't cut it as comparisons. With JB's throw at the stumps of Labu, that was a genuine stumping attempt, trying to catch the batsman off guard while he was still completing his play (the leave). Whereas in the JB stumping, Ray Charles could've seen the ball was dead. He'd marked the crease, he was walking to have a chat with Stokes. EVERY SINGLE PLAYER on that pitch knew it. THAT's what stinks.
- Sure, all within the rules to give him out, but is that how we wanna win?
- I hadn't been aware of McCullum's 2009 effort which is being widely circulated.. yep .. also a disgrace and it's good the hypocracy is being called out.
- Stark's catch completely irrelevant! Basically a shit decision, not a deliberate shit play.
- Finally, to those that say sportsmanship in cricket is dead - the spirit of the game - and are using that as a defence - absolute bullshit! I don't know what kind of glasses you're wearing but they must have a special "see cheating everywhere" filter on em (how sad). In first class games around the world and in grade games everywhere, cricketers continue to fess up to grassed catches, balls hitting the rope for 4, checking in with sconed players etc. Admittedly not many walk these days (none!) after a nick not being given but that's a little different too.
Isn’t every play, every tactic, in a game done with forethought and with the rules in mind? It was calculated and brilliant, and within the rules.
Sandpapergate is a completely different kettle of fish.
Its a shame Cummins didn't recall Bairstow, the series has been played in good spirit so far and there was no need to go down the win at all costs route. Despite saying he intended to improve the reputation of Australia cricket after Aussie players were caught cheating in South Africa, Cummins has just lived up to the stereotype. Of course the stumping was within the rules but Bairstow wasn't seeking to gain an advantage, he was just walking to chat to his batting partner at the end of the over, having marked his crease. Its the sort of thing that would cause ructions at grade level, never mind in a test. Underhand and unnecessary, just win the game properly.
I like your comment, upnorth.
The ‘spirit of cricket’ is only invoked by England when it suits them. Are there any examples recently where an English captain has done what they expect Cummins to have done.
The Bairstow and Carey stumping attempts were identical. End of the over or otherwise. In fact, Carey was quicker with his return throw, if anything.
Labush’s shot was complete. He was in his crease. No advantage gained.
aside from the discussion at hand - "if you set your standards based on the actions of others, it then becomes a race to the bottom" - absolute gem of a comment Salty Dog
Agree B6. Great comment
Have since read in Aus and UK press that square leg umpire had begun walking to position for next over, main umpire was looking down to reach for cap/hat for bowler - things one would do at the end of the over. But afaik no 'over' had been called. Incident will be lost in semiotics.
Got to read some Broad transcripts too, and he was giving as good as he got with the 8 or so hits.
My all time favourite remains some Warney banter: "I'm sending you back to your shrink." reportedly said before bowling Cullinan (I think) out first ball.
haha, I liked "you've just dropped the world cup", but apparently it is just another "such is life" myth: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2011/jun/14/the-spin-cricket-email
The "Spirit Of Cricket" is a weird one. It sounds like some kind of drivel that King Charles would rely on to make himself look relevant. I've never heard any "Spirit Of Boxing". You're just there to beat someone within the rules of the game, overseen by someone who knows the rules of the game and upholds the rules of the game. Hope the 3rd test is as interesting as the 2nd one.
velocityjohnno wrote:Have since read in Aus and UK press that square leg umpire had begun walking to position for next over, main umpire was looking down to reach for cap/hat for bowler - things one would do at the end of the over. But afaik no 'over' had been called. Incident will be lost in semiotics.
Got to read some Broad transcripts too, and he was giving as good as he got with the 8 or so hits.
My all time favourite remains some Warney banter: "I'm sending you back to your shrink." reportedly said before bowling Cullinan (I think) out first ball.
VJ. Hi mate. Shane Warne, first asked “So, what colour was the couch “, followed by “I’m sending you back to your shrink “ , so, good. AW.
hahaha that's brutal!
You see the sporting environment we grew up in? Makes for funny anecdotes and puts psychologists' kids through private school...
Both test’s so far have been incredible viewing. Some epic performances & great courage shown by both sides.
Regarding the Bairstow incident I just wished Carey had given Bairstow a warning first “if you keep leaving your crease before over is called I’m gonna have a ping at your stumps”. As noted already the fact that it was the end of the over & no sneaky single or advantage was being had just made it look really average regardless of the rule. That said several past English test captains have backed Australia & simply put it down to game awareness. Carey had it, Bairstow didn’t.
Also, if anyone actually believes that the Poms wouldn’t take every option available within the rules to snavel a wicket in the same circumstances I think you’re kidding yourselves. Of course they would. It’s the Ashes.
Rabbits68 wrote:Both test’s so far have been incredible viewing. Some epic performances & great courage shown by both sides.
Regarding the Bairstow incident I just wished Carey had given Bairstow a warning first “if you keep leaving your crease before over is called I’m gonna have a ping at your stumps”. As noted already the fact that it was the end of the over & no sneaky single or advantage was being had just made it look really average regardless of the rule. That said several past English test captains have backed Australia & simply put it down to game awareness. Carey had it, Bairstow didn’t.
Also, if anyone actually believes that the Poms wouldn’t take every option available within the rules to snavel a wicket in the same circumstances I think you’re kidding yourselves. Of course they would. It’s the Ashes.
Hey Rabbits68. Good comment. The Poms from day dot have been attempting to get the pitches they want, similarly it’s backfired on both occasions, always trying to get the ball replaced whilst bowling etc. Ive watched the entire test due to an injury, on the last day amidst all the commotion of the last two hours , the Village Idiot, Stuart Broad deliberately stood on the ball once, so as to lessen its shine, later whilst still combatting our bowling he sort of attempted it again but the umpire gave him the stare.
All of Englands complaints and histrionics over the Bairstow incident are a complete cover up for their anxiety and nervousness associated with maintaining the rage of BazBall and the absolute need to succeed, otherwise its deemed a failure, one for the coach and two for the English cricket watching public. If they played line and length cricket as Broad commanded the Australians do, well then they may not be 2-0 down.
England are behaving like a kid in a playground whose just had their chupa-chup pulled from their mouth.AW.
I want to see Bazball win - I don't mean outright victory, but moreso thrilling matches with players going for it. A bit of 20/20 or the 100 in the game. Stokes is correct in noting Test cricket is waning in viewing and appeal to the public and players. So in this test we see the epic run chase from the man himself - everything you could hope for to watch.
So how to you beat Bazball? Well, you bounce it shoulder high on their leg side and wait for them to hole out to a deep field you set. That's how you defeat it.
If you watched Duckett in his second innings he was playing those shoulder high bouncers mostly down on the ground, so he understood the attack.
I hope the Bazball doesn't get replaced with the grudge match win at all costs kind of thing, but that's where I see it going. That would be like going back to the past.
A good write up of Lords' day 5:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07-03/ashes-second-test-lords-australia...
The english furore over the stumping shows an inability to identify what they can control.
They cant control if the aussies will play nice and say 'come back Jonny, it was just a joke old mate'
Its a waste of their time to concentrate on that, (unless it fueled Stokes to club his 155)
They can control their own actions and be aware of the situation when they're batting.
Going on about it, blaming external factors (Carey, Cummins) makes them feel good but does not address their lack of control that let it happen.
Matthew Syed on winning at all costs.
"Wimbledon started today without the retired Roger Federer, but spectators were still talking about the eight-times champion. He is missed for his elegance and balletic movement but also for the spirit he brought to the game.
And this spirit wasn’t just about observing the formal rules of tennis. Sport — and life — is not merely about technicalities and laws but the many other things that reveal character. Federer fought hard — often ruthlessly — but he also played with respect for his opponent and the finest traditions of the game. That is why he was admired; not only for his tennis but for his conduct.
Turning to cricket, I hoped that this Ashes series would bring out the best in the game. I hoped that the Australians might be taken at their word when they said, after various controversies, that they would not merely focus on the rules of the game but the spirit. I hoped they were telling the truth when their former head coach Justin Langer said cricket “is not just about being good cricketers, but good people who play the right way”. Sadly, I’m not sure they were being frank.
Had the stumping incident in the second Test on Sunday involved any other team, one might have been willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. We might have recognised that different interpretations can be placed on events in the heat of the moment. But one cannot easily offer this latitude to Australia. It wasn’t only the stumping of Jonny Bairstow that the crowd at Lord’s — and thousands watching at home — reacted to, but the weight of history that surrounds this team.
In some ways it is the Australia captain, Pat Cummins — a hero with the bat at Edgbaston, an innings I applauded at the time — who emerges as the most controversial character of all when you examine the context. Steve Smith, Cameron Bancroft and David Warner were punished for their role in “Sandpapergate”, having been caught red-handed cheating in 2018. The Australian cricket board sought to “draw a line” under the affair by conducting an independent inquiry, but — as most people now realise — it was a sham.
Only 24 per cent of the Australian players engaged with the process, most refusing to answer the questions of the supposedly thorough inquiry. As for Cummins — who was a bowler on the day and, according to almost every expert I know, must have known about what was happening — he has spent five years issuing denials. He even issued a formal public statement that he “did not know a foreign substance was taken on to the field to alter the condition of the ball”. What is certain is that he — and others — were never properly investigated.
Perhaps I might therefore venture a statement of my own: Pat, I struggle to believe you when you say you were oblivious to what was going on in South Africa. On the basis of what we know about you and the game, we are, I think, entitled to infer that you might be deceiving us, and possibly yourself. And perhaps because you never “owned” your part in that episode, you never examined the meaning of the words you uttered on taking the captaincy when promising to uphold the spirit of the game.
I don’t want to be too po-faced about this, by the way. I know that many cricket writers and former pros do not think the Aussies behaved unethically but, in a way, this is the most depressing thing of all. I suspect that a majority who love cricket — the paying spectators, the TV viewers; i.e. the people without whom the game wouldn’t exist — disagree. This is also the view of Rishi Sunak, although frankly I’d sooner the prime minister stuck to his day job. They can see that Bairstow was not seeking to gain an advantage, that he had touched in and that the umpires were moving on; this makes it quite different to many of the other incidents circulating on Twitter.
I was at Lord’s on Saturday and much enjoyed the contest. Then on Sunday I drove with the family to the South Downs and had a lovely day in the countryside, watching the Test on a smartphone and listening on Test Match Special. In the afternoon, after the match had finished, we drove through Chiddingfold on the way back to London and noticed a village game unfolding on the most beautiful ground. It was a 35-over match, the home team were chasing and they were down to the final five overs.
So we pulled over to watch, when something interesting happened. A ball was dollied into the air, a fielder dived to catch it and it was given out. The fielder, at this point, graciously shook his head, gestured to the batsmen and said he had grounded the ball in the act of the catch. Nobody would have known if the fielder had claimed the dismissal but he clearly felt that winning in the right way is more important than winning at all costs.
Whatever you think about the stumping incident, perhaps we can agree on one thing. This is a distinction this Australia team — and their captain — have never grasped. And perhaps never will."
velocityjohnno wrote:I want to see Bazball win - I don't mean outright victory, but moreso thrilling matches with players going for it. A bit of 20/20 or the 100 in the game. Stokes is correct in noting Test cricket is waning in viewing and appeal to the public and players. So in this test we see the epic run chase from the man himself - everything you could hope for to watch.
So how to you beat Bazball? Well, you bounce it shoulder high on their leg side and wait for them to hole out to a deep field you set. That's how you defeat it.
If you watched Duckett in his second innings he was playing those shoulder high bouncers mostly down on the ground, so he understood the attack.
I hope the Bazball doesn't get replaced with the grudge match win at all costs kind of thing, but that's where I see it going. That would be like going back to the past.
Intersting perspective VJ. Regarding Bazball what would be interesting to know is how many games they've won on flat, lifeless wickets vs wickets with a bit in them over the life of a test match. I'm not so sure that Bazball would stack up so well on wickets with a bit in them from a winning perspective. That said, apparently Bazball's first aim is to "entertain", not win, but how long can that be viable? As thrilling as Stokes's innings was, for me the main reason it was, is because it is quite rare to see. If that becomes the norm then there goes the thrill factor. And in order for it to be possible it requires lifeless, flat slow wickets from day 1 to day 5. This then takes away the incredible art and skill of bowling because as you suggested the only way to combat it on those type of wickets is to bowl short and put most of the fielders on the boundary and wait for the batsman to hole out. That scenario on a regular basis would become very boring, very quickly to me personally and alot of others too I reckon. Potentially five days worth of T20 under the guise of Test Cricket. It might pay the bills but no thanks :-)
What has been wonderful IMO is to see the Bazball method vs the more traditional style of test match play. The one big improvement on that has got to be wickets that offer more for the bowlers at various stages over a 5 day test match. That to me sounds tantalising.
I think you can absolutely have a Bazball bowling attack as well as way of batting, imagine the ball swinging and I guess the essence of what Stokes is going on about is playing without fear, so apply that to the bowling and it could be very entertaining as well.
Article I linked before mentioned that Bazball's overall results have been mixed, though engagement was up - that was the theme.
What about the idea of fear driving 'win at all costs' - that's an interesting one too. Hated this at the school I went to as by year 11 us mortals got replaced in various sports A teams by scholarship units who then went on to win the trophy (and get away with whatever they wanted to) & can remember headmaster glowing like megalomaniac with trophy held aloft... winners are grinners.
"It's very very smart from Jonny Bairstow"
— Jomboy (@Jomboy_) July 4, 2023
"Brilliant work by Jonny Bairstow, a wicket out of absolutely nothing there"
"a lot of credit to Jonny Bairstow for realizing the moment"#TheAshes pic.twitter.com/OXnt6mCJfG
Upholders of the Spirit of cricket…!. Again. Ball was dead. Player wasn’t seeking to gain advantage. Right? I mean Johnny Bairstow. That saint - he waited for Patel to lift his foot. Waited for at least a couple of seconds longer than Carey did - who didn’t wait at all.
This media carry-on. It’s all BS. All of it.
They’re professional sportsmen. They applaud it when their own players do it. But spare me the hypocrisy please gentlemen.
Do I like it? ^^ hell no. It’s shit when it happens in social cricket. And it does.
It’s like playing chess
“No wait wait , I didn’t mean to move my pawn there”
And here’s the after game interview from the stumping ^^ with St Jonny Bairstow:
Well, well, well 🧐
— Andy Lee (@andytomlee) July 4, 2023
“It’s within the rules of the game and that’s how it is!” - Bairstow 2014#Bairstow#Ashes23
Thanks for the heads up @YallopDiana 👏 pic.twitter.com/aNX1KeZIkW
So many excuses and no acknowledgement of poor awareness.
Jonny looked down and tapped his foot in the crease before leaving - was it too hard to check the ball heading towards the stumps - dozy cricket
Stokes at the other end didn't warn him, wasn't even watching that end - dozy cricket
The umpires had started to move off position and reach into his pocket to hand back the bowlers gear but hadnt called over yet - poor awareness by the umps as well, the ball was still live.
If Carey had misgloved it and it rolled 20m away, they would of been entitled to run a bye and I'm sure they would of - there would of been no 'sorry we cant run that, I've tapped my foot to signify the ball is dead now'
Yep the longer this goes on the more the poms look like sore losers and, surprise surprise, whingers. Who would have guessed, a whinging pom.
This is highly enjoyable watching them dig themselves deeper.
As for current test cricket being a gentlemans games, is that like how current pro surfing is the sport of kings?
At least it has generated some additional interest and “entertainment”. The raison d‘etre of bazball I believe.
ha, made me dig out chariots of fire and watch it with the kids, explaining the tweed-cartel and their class-driven need for sanctimony when it comes to moral high-ground. Aussies have always been considered the spivs of the circus, and since sandpaper gate, we should take it as given we have been cast in the role as baddies. Good luck to 'em.
"When Stokes was out he stood motionless, almost bent double with disappointment. The Australians who moments earlier were desperate to get him out went to simultaneously congratulate and console him.
That is the spirit of cricket."
https://www.theage.com.au/sport/cricket/how-irrational-outrage-now-fuels...
Love a bit o' Orwell, typical of him, missing the points of fun, noise, camaraderie, etc.. he's soooo Phillip Adamsy when it comes to sport, the result of being ridiculed, traumatised and subjected to class crap through school.. (Coming Up For Air by Orwell, is one of my fave re-readable fictions AW/WS)
Been lovin the cricket. Test cricket is the best cricket. The drawn out drama or not.
I havn't read that Orwell one Baseix. Will get it from the library.
I do have some fave re-reads as well.
basesix wrote:Love a bit o' Orwell, typical of him, missing the points of fun, noise, camaraderie, etc.. he's soooo Phillip Adamsy when it comes to sport, the result of being ridiculed, traumatised and subjected to class crap through school.. (Coming Up For Air by Orwell, is one of my fave re-readable fictions AW/WS)
Basesix. Thanks for the heads up for the Orwellian title, it’s fictional but I’ll still check it out.AW.
Next test starts tomorrow night, looking forward to it. A very good Orwell read too WS. Wasn't soccer created as something for the working class to do in their new urban environments after the industrial revolution? School, too, for that matter?
And Wimbledon's been on so watching that too as the wind blows onshore where I am. Alcaraz is incredible, just sheer power and perfect touch on the drop shots.
"Many years ago I was asked to address the Australian players at a secret conference about why, when they were winning, they weren’t embraced by the public.
They couldn’t understand why the tactic of not just beating but belittling opponents was seen as against the spirit of cricket.
Terms such as “mental disintegration” were just a brand name for bullying."
- from that Age article above.
velocityjohnno wrote:"Many years ago I was asked to address the Australian players at a secret conference about why, when they were winning, they weren’t embraced by the public.
They couldn’t understand why the tactic of not just beating but belittling opponents was seen as against the spirit of cricket.
Terms such as “mental disintegration” were just a brand name for bullying."
- from that Age article above.
Sylvester writes well, eh?
Classic fromDamien Martyn, lol
One classic little anecdote, when I was about 13 or so got to do some training with the state team, little bro came along. He was about 10 or 11. He decided to give one of the quicks a bit of lip while in the nets batting, and got a true real fast ball or two sent down at him. No fast bowling ever fazed him again.
And yep he does write well Blackers.
Ben Harvey sums it up nicely.
Praying that Carey has a ping at stumps first ball.
It has now entered the lexicon. Richmond v Swans, first quarter. Nick Vlastuin dozily wanders off the mark, play on is called and he gets pinged by Tom Papley. Radio commentator calls it " Oh dear, he's done a Bairstow" .
Oh yeah, Warner out to Broad. Doh!
Incredible first session. Great to see a wicket with a bit of zip in it & a bowler sending them down at 90 odd mile an hour.
The Bison.
What a ton!
Thanks Joe.
The dirty whinging Poms getting a bit of an introduction to true West Ozzie power.
Nice work big dog!
Potential series winning knock.
#bisonball
.