The Ashes - TEST 2

Andy_W said:
If we had left everything we would have got fewer runs though, so would have got out for less.

They would have just kept bowling there, as the umpires let them, and we would have either got players injured or gloved/ edged the odd one etc.

If one team isn't scoring and you're getting opportunities then nobody would change away from the tactic.

It's hard to know what to do with inconsistent bounce when the ball could go anywhere from stomach height to over head height etc, not possible to leave every ball.

The Aussies pushed the boundaries, they umpires didn't call any of it, which I found remarkable. As they never called it, we had no option just to play what we could (not easy). Then we used the same tactic ourselves in their innings and got them out for 279, problem was they got another go at doing it in our second innings and we couldn't got back and do it in their first innings as it wasn't a legal option etc.

Another problem I have is that we didn't seem to mention it either, but not sure whether that's through trying to act tough and not wanting to look scared etc, or they just didn't realise either. I think I only heard/ saw Broad mention something about it once, when he was batting.
Click to expand...
Just my take on it but if we had started ducking/leaving and wearing a few the umpires would have intervened and would have enforced the laws. I think the umpires were as guilty as everyone else by getting carried away with the emotion and the moment and forgot to do their job properly.

The Aussies had a free hit really with the short ball barrage because of Lyon going off they had no other options, I just wish we’d played a bit more with our head instead of our hearts or egos (delete as applicable)
 
The Aussie press also claiming Hill 13 or whatever is it at Adelaide is miles more intimidating than any of our ‘hostile’ venues
 
Il Preside said:
The Aussie press also claiming Hill 13 or whatever is it at Adelaide is miles more intimidating than any of our ‘hostile’ venues
Click to expand...
Haha. Notice they say that after a test at the staid and dull Lords. Edgbaston was bouncing and I can't imagine the crowd at Headingly being too quiet
 
Il Preside said:
The Aussie press also claiming Hill 13 or whatever is it at Adelaide is miles more intimidating than any of our ‘hostile’ venues
Click to expand...
I can imagine it tbh. Not been there but have been to tests at the SCG and MCG. Bloodshed in the crowd on both occasions (Aussies fighting amongst each other). Cricket is sort of their “hoolie” sport. 😂
 
MolteniArcore said:
Saw some videos online of Bairstow & Woakes taking the ball, holding it up to the stumps, waiting for the batter to lift his leg to step back and then stumping him in the County Championship! Hardly in the spirit of the game!!

What goes around comes around!!

https://twitter.com/x/status/1675785125974642688
Click to expand...
It's all context though, and what people keep missing. Two things can be almost similar, but then still very different.

Bit different with spin bowling, a batter playing on the edge of his crease, genuine stumpings being a major part in that form of bowling, and not the end of the over (I presume). The batsman there in that vid is at fault I think, especially if you look at the side on view in the next tweet. He's not in control of his balance/ pushing it etc.

The batsman isn't really "in" until he's finished his shot/ movement in my eyes, but Bairstow was playing in his crease, didn't play a shot, finished the not playing of the shot, and then walked to the middle at the end of the over. He wouldn't have done that if it was after ball, 1,2,3,4 or 5, or against spin etc.

Baristow wasn't really stumped, as he didn't play a shot and was in, after he'd ducked and finished that movement.
Bairstow wasn't run out, as he didn't attempt to make a run or steal a run in any way, he didn't even look where the ball went, that's how much he wasn't running, and there was obviously no run called by either batsman.
 
Andy_W said:
It's all context though, and what people keep missing. Two things can be almost similar, but then still very different.

Bit different with spin bowling, a batter playing on the edge of his crease, genuine stumpings being a major part in that form of bowling, and not the end of the over (I presume). The batsman there in that vid is at fault I think, especially if you look at the side on view in the next tweet. He's not in control of his balance/ pushing it etc.

The batsman isn't really "in" until he's finished his shot/ movement in my eyes, but Bairstow was playing in his crease, didn't play a shot, finished the not playing of the shot, and then walked to the middle at the end of the over. He wouldn't have done that if it was after ball, 1,2,3,4 or 5, or against spin etc.

Baristow wasn't really stumped, as he didn't play a shot and was in, after he'd ducked and finished that movement.
Bairstow wasn't run out, as he didn't attempt to make a run or steal a run in any way, he didn't even look where the ball went, that's how much he wasn't running, and there was obviously no run called by either batsman.
Click to expand...

A friend of mine who has played cricket for England has just been round our house (cycling related assistance required) and I have asked him about the incident and Bairstow’s previous stumping playing for his County.

His thinks Bairstow was an idiot being a keeper and not making sure over was called. Blames him totally. When Bairstow did it to Labuschagne (I think it was) earlier he thinks England would have claimed the wicket 100%, just as Australia did. England have form for this as well, remember vs New Zealand when the bowler knocked over the batsman and we stumped him? He also thinks that Englands batters have been idiots trying to play all that short stuff and getting out cheaply.

In his own words: You can’t do stuff like what Bairstow did in the match (and that County match) and then moan when it’s done to you. Broad wants to keep his mouth shut as he’s not walked when he’s obviously edged it so it no better as well.

By the laws of the game, and the sprit in which it is played in modern times, it was out. We would have (and have done) the same. We are all crying about it as we are 2-0 in the series and it’s the Australians.

You mention playing spin - I think that’s even worse. The guy is stepping back into his crease and he just waits, in two movements, for him to step back. It’s certainly not in the spirit of the game and a low move.
 
Labuschagne was batting outside of his crease that’s why it’s completely different. Bairstow back foot is in the crease in his stance and never moves out of it when the ball is bowled until he believes the ball is dead. The only reason the Aussies did it was they where ***ed off over the Starc catch which was ruled out by a neutral umpire.
 
Last edited:
MolteniArcore said:
A friend of mine who has played cricket for England has just been round our house (cycling related assistance required) and I have asked him about the incident and Bairstow’s previous stumping playing for his County.

His thinks Bairstow was an idiot being a keeper and not making sure over was called. Blames him totally. When Bairstow did it to Labuschagne (I think it was) earlier he thinks England would have claimed the wicket 100%, just as Australia did. England have form for this as well, remember vs New Zealand when the bowler knocked over the batsman and we stumped him? He also thinks that Englands batters have been idiots trying to play all that short stuff and getting out cheaply.

In his own words: You can’t do stuff like what Bairstow did in the match (and that County match) and then moan when it’s done to you. Broad wants to keep his mouth shut as he’s not walked when he’s obviously edged it so it no better as well.

By the laws of the game, and the sprit in which it is played in modern times, it was out. We would have (and have done) the same. We are all crying about it as we are 2-0 in the series and it’s the Australians.

You mention playing spin - I think that’s even worse. The guy is stepping back into his crease and he just waits, in two movements, for him to step back. It’s certainly not in the spirit of the game and a low move.
Click to expand...
Sounds like he's also got a liking for comparing incomparable things. Sure he didn't wait for over to be called, so can be out, but in that scenario everyone knows it's "over". Bairstow didn't wait because he didn't think he needed to, as it was that obvious he was "in" and the play was over as nobody in their right mind thought the over was still in play. Even the umps thought it was over, as they had started walking to next positions (before they called over, another **** up for the umps). Probably just needs a rule change where "stumpings" like this are not allowed against fast bowlers, unless the keeper is doing it with his gloves and stood up. Or the ball is over the second it's under control in the keepers hands, when a fast bowler is bowling. Obviously, the spirit of the game cannot be trusted to some players, so we need to take the option away where they can bend it to get an unearned wicket.

Why did he even bother mentioning the Broad thing? To try and apply some false equivalence, so it's 1-1?
Every batsman in the Aussie lineup has edged one and not walked, and they've all probably been given out when not edging one, and been told to get walking. That's a job for them to review and get the third umpire involved, same as this could have been really, it should have been possible to refer it and England just say "look, he was clearly in, not playing a shot and just going for a chat at the end of the over" and everyone (inc aussies) would have went "yeah, fair enough, I agree with that" and the umpire could have just then said "ok, not out then, carry on".

There were about 5 things working in Bairstows favour, which don't apply to the other scenarios on every other example I've seen. The fact people have spent time trying to dig up old incomparable things shows they're tending towards bias already, for whatever reason.

I'm not even bothered it was given against England, Aussies would have won anyway due to the umps allowing them to bowl so short in both our innings. I'm more bothered about Aussies bending the technicalities to get an unearned wicket, which spits in the face of it being a largely honest game.
 
atypical_boro said:
I can imagine it tbh. Not been there but have been to tests at the SCG and MCG. Bloodshed in the crowd on both occasions (Aussies fighting amongst each other). Cricket is sort of their “hoolie” sport. 😂
Click to expand...
That much is clear from looking at their team. Not a privately educated man amongst them. Shouldn't be let into the Lord's ground, let alone on the pitch 😉
 
Kosovo said:
The only reason the Aussies did it was they where ***ed off over the Starc catch which was ruled out by a neutral umpire.
Click to expand...
Every action should be treated as independent I think (and it is), so I don't think there's any merit in them thinking they didn't get that, so deserve a different one.

The Starc one was a bit weird, I'm a firm believer in if it's caught for a reasonable amount of time then it's out if the player is in control. But he used the ball to land on (intentionally) when not in control of his movement, it's the same as a fielder catching the ball and then rolling over the boundary (when not in control as in the air or rolling, it's given a 4/6 as the movement hasn't finished.

With Starc that's hit the deck before the movement has finished or he wasn't willing to land without putting his hands down palm first (fanny). He could have rolled back/ left under control but probably would have rolled over the boundary (4 runs).

There was another Aussie one where the ball hit the deck as/ before it was caught, that looked less out than Starcs, but was given out.
 
MolteniArcore said:
A friend of mine who has played cricket for England has just been round our house (cycling related assistance required) and I have asked him about the incident and Bairstow’s previous stumping playing for his County.

His thinks Bairstow was an idiot being a keeper and not making sure over was called. Blames him totally. When Bairstow did it to Labuschagne (I think it was) earlier he thinks England would have claimed the wicket 100%, just as Australia did. England have form for this as well, remember vs New Zealand when the bowler knocked over the batsman and we stumped him? He also thinks that Englands batters have been idiots trying to play all that short stuff and getting out cheaply.

In his own words: You can’t do stuff like what Bairstow did in the match (and that County match) and then moan when it’s done to you. Broad wants to keep his mouth shut as he’s not walked when he’s obviously edged it so it no better as well.

By the laws of the game, and the sprit in which it is played in modern times, it was out. We would have (and have done) the same. We are all crying about it as we are 2-0 in the series and it’s the Australians.

You mention playing spin - I think that’s even worse. The guy is stepping back into his crease and he just waits, in two movements, for him to step back. It’s certainly not in the spirit of the game and a low move.
Click to expand...
Not wishing to sound really pedantic but vs New Zealand the guy was run out, not stumped and Paul Collingwood later apologised and said he made the wrong call in the heat of the moment (if that is the incident to which your mate was referring)

www.theguardian.com

Collingwood says sorry for run-out furore

England captain Paul Collingwood has apologised for his 'heat of the moment' decision
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
MolteniArcore said:
A friend of mine who has played cricket for England has just been round our house (cycling related assistance required) and I have asked him about the incident and Bairstow’s previous stumping playing for his County.

His thinks Bairstow was an idiot being a keeper and not making sure over was called. Blames him totally. When Bairstow did it to Labuschagne (I think it was) earlier he thinks England would have claimed the wicket 100%, just as Australia did. England have form for this as well, remember vs New Zealand when the bowler knocked over the batsman and we stumped him? He also thinks that Englands batters have been idiots trying to play all that short stuff and getting out cheaply.

In his own words: You can’t do stuff like what Bairstow did in the match (and that County match) and then moan when it’s done to you. Broad wants to keep his mouth shut as he’s not walked when he’s obviously edged it so it no better as well.

By the laws of the game, and the sprit in which it is played in modern times, it was out. We would have (and have done) the same. We are all crying about it as we are 2-0 in the series and it’s the Australians.

You mention playing spin - I think that’s even worse. The guy is stepping back into his crease and he just waits, in two movements, for him to step back. It’s certainly not in the spirit of the game and a low move.
Click to expand...
Labuschagne was batting outside of his crease to try and gain an advantage. The clip with Patel shows that in playing the ball Patel had overbalanced and was going to step out of his crease. Not comparable at all.
 
There are plenty of examples where English players have acted in an up sporting fashion. We obviously don’t like it up us because we all sound like spoiled children crying because Bairstow was given out when he was out.

Time to move on.

@Andy_W He mentioned Broad cos he was crying about how that’s all Carey will be remembered for. It didn’t surprise him though as he says Broad is a bit of a t*t.
 
I think people are using the Bairstow thing as something to rally round more than anything.

Hopefully it results in an absolute bear pit atmosphere which gets into the Aussie heads.

Looking forward to it.
 
MolteniArcore said:
A friend of mine who has played cricket for England has just been round our house (cycling related assistance required) and I have asked him about the incident and Bairstow’s previous stumping playing for his County.

His thinks Bairstow was an idiot being a keeper and not making sure over was called. Blames him totally.
Click to expand...
To be honest, I'm not really surprised that a former professional cricketer doesn't really get the spirit of cricket thing. You could tell that on the chummy Sky Sports coverage on Sunday, with the public school quartet of Ian Ward, Michael Atherton, Nasser Hussain and Andrew Strauss all agreeing with each other that, because it was within the laws of the game, it was a perfectly fair dismissal, and trying to work out what all the plebs were complaining about.

The thing I don't understand about them is if, instead of being stumped, Bairstow had been the victim of a Mankad, I can guarantee that they would all having been going nuts about it, despite that also being within the laws of the game. The appear to view that as being the equivalent of spitting in someone's face, but everything else is fair game apparently.

My personal view (and not to deflect from the Aussies' responsibility here) is that the bowler's end umpire messed up massively here. It doesn't matter if he'd called over or not, there are six balls in an over and the ball becomes dead at some point after each of them, not just at the end of the over. As the umpire was looking and reaching for the bowler's cap when the incident happened, it's clear that he thought the ball was dead and that is his decision to make under the laws of the game. If he'd just stood his ground and called dead ball, we wouldn't all still be talking about this.
 
Billy Horner said:
To be honest, I'm not really surprised that a former professional cricketer doesn't really get the spirit of cricket thing. You could tell that on the chummy Sky Sports coverage on Sunday, with the public school quartet of Ian Ward, Michael Atherton, Nasser Hussain and Andrew Strauss all agreeing with each other that, because it was within the laws of the game, it was a perfectly fair dismissal, and trying to work out what all the plebs were complaining about.

The thing I don't understand about them is if, instead of being stumped, Bairstow had been the victim of a Mankad, I can guarantee that they would all having been going nuts about it, despite that also being within the laws of the game. The appear to view that as being the equivalent of spitting in someone's face, but everything else is fair game apparently.

My personal view (and not to deflect from the Aussies' responsibility here) is that the bowler's end umpire messed up massively here. It doesn't matter if he'd called over or not, there are six balls in an over and the ball becomes dead at some point after each of them, not just at the end of the over. As the umpire was looking and reaching for the bowler's cap when the incident happened, it's clear that he thought the ball was dead and that is his decision to make under the laws of the game. If he'd just stood his ground and called dead ball, we wouldn't all still be talking about this.
Click to expand...

Maybe those that have played the game at the highest level understand the rules and the spirit of the game better than us lot sat typing on a message board?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top