Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: ncRover on June 16, 2023, 10:51:28 am
-
Great toss to win, let’s go!
I’m a bit scared for what’s probably going to happen to Moeen Ali though.
-
Great toss to win, let’s go!
I’m a bit scared for what’s probably going to happen to Moeen Ali though.
Statement of intent from Crawley 4 off 1st ball.
Duckett just out. Nicked to slip. He will get found out I think but that is just my opinion.
Jennings is a better player but he isn’t fit at present.
Need to be careful because if they go gun ho against Aussies we will come unstuck.
Every ball has to be played on merit. Yes be aggressive but it has to be controlled aggression.
This should be a be a very tight series.
-
Big Zak looking good so far. Played some lovely shots. Happy with the first hour.
-
Big Zak looking good so far. Played some lovely shots. Happy with the first hour.
How are we 3 down at Lunch
Funny old game.
We haven’t looked in trouble apart from 4 balls. 3 have got wickets.
-
Scoring at a good pace in the morning session, a session without a maiden being bowled.
32 overs now bowled without a maiden being bowled
-
Brook getting out in the most bizarre way possible.
I'd say anything less than 350 is very disappointing.
-
Brook getting out in the most bizarre way possible.
I'd say anything less than 350 is very disappointing.
Never ever seen a dismissal like that. Very, very unlucky.
-
Roooooooooooooot - another ton
-
Bold move. Wicket tonight would be gorgeous.
-
Too risky for me, maybe I'll be wrong but we needed more runs. It's only day 1 and Australia are good.
-
Just finished work. Why in earth have they declared? Is it the weather forecast?
-
Just finished work. Why in earth have they declared? Is it the weather forecast?
I would say so ,it's forcast rain on Sunday
-
They wanted a few overs at a dodgy opening pair. Very nearly worked.
-
Suboptimal declaration with a below par score on a flat deck, and Root still at the crease. We had less chance old winning after we declared than we did before we did, that’s for sure.
-
I'd have liked over 400 and 420 looked on to me with Robinson blocking very well and Root opening his shoulders against what looked a very tired Aussie attack .
However this is the way England want to play and you have to go with it , it does make for very exciting and entertaining test match cricket so fair play .
-
Don’t know what the weather today is like at the test match, but a bit of cloud cover like it is here and some humidity could make the ball move around this morning
-
When the sun is out we'll get found out. 3 seamers that can't get over 80mph not swinging it is going to take for ever to get them out. Wood needs to play if they're going to put flat decks like this on all summer
-
Anderson and Broad won’t play every game but I agree Padge, nor can Stokes bowl regularly. Moeen got a few wickets but has been knocked about.
Starc not in the XI means a weak Aussie tail though as he normally gets a few runs against us.
-
That early declaration is going to bite Stokes on the bum.
Didn’t understand it at all and now on The morning of the 4th day it is looking even more foolish.
-
Needed to have the majority of our overs bowling tomorrow in cloudy muggy conditions. Easy evening and fully expect Australia to be half way there tonight.
-
Australia got all the time in the world as well.
Even with better weather conditions for seam bowling it’s a slow pitch. Moeen injured too.
Who’s at Headingley?
-
Bad forecast for Tuesday though. Might save us
-
Proving to be a great test match.
-
Proving to be a great test match.
Absolute classic. However it ends, it's been absolutely captivating.
-
Conditions look favourable for a Broad and Anderson masterclass tomorrow hopefully.
-
Conditions look favourable for a Broad and Anderson masterclass tomorrow hopefully.
Got to stop raining first
-
No play before lunch today, and an early lunch being taken. Think I’ll do the same!
-
Getting interesting now
-
Gutted.
-
That declaration.....
-
Given that the match was played until 7:20 and never any guarantee of how many additional runs Root might have scored, Stokes' declaration was arguably optimal to give chance of a win.
-
Yep, I was critical of the declaration all the way though the match but had it not happened it would've been a draw.
Is it better to lose by going balls out for the win or to draw after five days' endeavour?
Short term you take the draw but for driving public (and youngster) engagement with the sport, a nail-biting definitive result is probably better. And had we bowled a bit better/not had the bad luck with Moeen's finger injury we could've won it. Either way a great, entertaining start to the series which is absolutely wide open.
-
Well I did say that declaration would come back to bite him on the backside.
I was right.
Do understand why he did it. If we had taken 2 wickets on that 1st eve then it would have looked a master stroke. But we didn’t so it was a risky strategy.
That extra 30 runs we may have got if we had batted on could have won us the game.
We will never know of course.
Would Stokes do the same again? That will be interesting to see.
-
Australia got all the time in the world as well.
Even with better weather conditions for seam bowling it’s a slow pitch. Moeen injured too.
Who’s at Headingley?
I will be there on 4th day.
-
I'm also on the Western Terrace on the Sunday.
-
Absolutely disgraceful dismissal of Bairstow.
That is really not cricket.
-
Absolutely disgraceful dismissal of Bairstow.
That is really not cricket.
Yes, how dare Carey try and get our batsmen out??
It's Bairstow's own fault if he doesn't know the rules of the game, no-one else's.
-
Good on Stuart Broad. Apparently when he went out to bat, the first thing he said to Carey was "You know you'll be forever remembered for that."
Winning isn't worth it if you have to win like that.
-
If Bairstow hadn't done something stupid he wouldn't be out.
-
Give over Glyn.
They've just peppered Bairstow with short stuff.
He's survived the over, ducked the final ball, stood in his crease making it clear he considered the ball dead, then steppes out.
He was still in his ground when Carey threw the ball. Carey and Cummins could have withdrawn the appeal. They chose not to do. In my eyes, that's totally against the spirit of the game and I'd say it if it was the other way round.
-
If Bairstow hadn't done something stupid he wouldn't be out.
It wasn't stupid. It was assuming that they were playing within a well defined spirit. It would never have dawned on Bairstow that anyone would attempt to dismiss a player like that. It wasn't clever cricket by Carey. It was cheating against the spirit of the game.
-
If Carey was cheating Bairstow wouldn't have been given out.
-
There's rules, and there's principles . They don't have to be exclusive
-
Bairstow’s own fault, ball wasn’t dead
-
Wow, astonishingly bad takes from Glyn & Draytonian here. You could probably argue that Bairstow was sloppy but come on, it’s a disgraceful move by Carey.
-
The goal that Forrester scored when he was supposed to roll it back to the keeper was a goal within the laws of the game.
-
It was borderline but we can’t have any complaints about it being given out. The ball was never anything like dead. Carey caught it and threw it in pretty much one movement.
-
Wow, astonishingly bad takes from Glyn & Draytonian here. You could probably argue that Bairstow was sloppy but come on, it’s a disgraceful move by Carey.
Carey threw it at the wicket straightaway, so the ball was still live. When he threw it, Bairstow was in his crease and wouldn't have been out. It certainly isn't Carey's fault that Bairstow decided to go walkabout for no good reason while the ball was still in the air.
-
It was borderline but we can’t have any complaints about it being given out. The ball was never anything like dead. Carey caught it and threw it in pretty much one movement.
See my post above.
There are things in every sport which are within the laws but against the spirit.
If you don't play sport according to the spirit of the game, it's pointless.
-
So when do YOU think the ball is dead?
-
The dismissal was within the laws of the game. I accept that.
It absolutely was not within the spirit of the game.
Presumably you think that Dickov should have banked the advantage when Forrester scored that perfectly legal goal?
-
Then every stumping in history has been against the spirit of the game.
As for Dickov, I don't know I wasn't there.
Funny how not one of the TV pundits have said anything was against the spirit of the game. You'd think they'd know and care more about it than either of us.
-
Then every stumping in history has been against the spirit of the game.
As for Dickov, I don't know I wasn't there.
It wasn’t a stumping, it was a run out but he was not attempting a run, within the laws of the game, but another disgrace from the Aussies, never ever in the spirit of the game, even the members in the long room at Lords were having a pop at the cheats
-
Then every stumping in history has been against the spirit of the game.
As for Dickov, I don't know I wasn't there.
Funny how not one of the TV pundits have said anything was against the spirit of the game. You'd think they'd know and care more about it than either of us.
Don't squirm out of that one about Dickov and Forrester. You know exactly what happened. Presumably you disagreed with what Dickov did.
As for your stumping comment, that's nonsense.
Stumpings come about when a player is out of his ground because he's been seeking to gain an advantage (coming down the pitch to get to the pitch of the ball) or because he's been outdone by the skill of the bowler.
Comparing stumpings to what we've just seen is simply silly.
-
Then every stumping in history has been against the spirit of the game.
As for Dickov, I don't know I wasn't there.
It wasn’t a stumping, it was a run out but he was not attempting a run, within the laws of the game, but another disgrace from the Aussies, never ever in the spirit of the game, even the members in the long room at Lords were having a pop at the cheats
Erm...he's been given out stumped, not run out.
-
Then every stumping in history has been against the spirit of the game.
As for Dickov, I don't know I wasn't there.
Funny how not one of the TV pundits have said anything was against the spirit of the game. You'd think they'd know and care more about it than either of us.
Don't squirm out of that one about Dickov and Forrester. You know exactly what happened. Presumably you disagreed with what Dickov did.
No I f**king don't know what happened!!
Out of line completely.
-
Then every stumping in history has been against the spirit of the game.
As for Dickov, I don't know I wasn't there.
Funny how not one of the TV pundits have said anything was against the spirit of the game. You'd think they'd know and care more about it than either of us.
Don't squirm out of that one about Dickov and Forrester. You know exactly what happened. Presumably you disagreed with what Dickov did.
As for your stumping comment, that's nonsense.
Stampings come about when a player is out of his ground because he's been seeking to gain an advantage (coming down the pitch to get to the pitch of the ball) or because he's been outdone by the skill of the bowler.
Comparing stumpings to what we've just seen is simply silly.
If Bairstow had stayed where he was when the ball was thrown he wouldn't be out. He was out of his ground when a live ball hit the wicket, his fault nobody else's.
-
Carey threw the ball immediately after he had caught it, the Australians will have watched him in previous overs and games. Bairstow’s fault
-
You don't know what happened in one of the most notorious events of the Rovers recent history?
Then I'll tell you.
There was an injury stoppage of play. When it was restarted, Forrester was supposed to knock the ball back to the Bury keeper. Instead, dick that he was, he curled the ball over the keeper's head and into the top corner.
Dickov insisted that from the kick off, we let Bury walk the ball down the pitch to equalise.
I assume you think Dickov was wrong because Forrester's goal was fair within the laws of the game.
-
You don't know what happened in one of the most notorious events of the Rovers recent history?
Then I'll tell you.
There was an injury stoppage of play. When it was restarted, Forrester was supposed to knock the ball back to the Bury keeper. Instead, dick that he was, he curled the ball over the keeper's head and into the top corner.
Dickov insisted that from the kick off, we let Bury walk the ball down the pitch to equalise.
I assume you think Dickov was wrong because Forrester's goal was fair within the laws of the game.
Not read it, don't care, irrelevant to me after what you've said.
I barely remember any Dickov matches, let alone any specific incidents in one of them that I haven't seen.
I really get pissed off when somebody takes it upon themselves to tell me what I know or not.
-
My apologies Glyn. I genuinely found it hard to credit that a Rovers fan would be ignorant of something that propelled us into global media attention.
Personally, I get pissed off when people cheat against the spirit of a sport. We all have our standards.
-
What has Carey done that is against your idea of principles?
All I've seen is him doing his job which is to try and stump out a batsman as quick as possible. If he'd held onto the ball for a second or two so the umpire would accept that the fielding side considered the ball dead you'd have a point but by throwing the ball back straightaway it was obvious he didn't consider the ball dead.
Bairstow didn't even bother to look behind him to see what was happening. He knew the wicketkeeper was a long way back to a fast bowler, he chose to ignore it. So what if Bairstow considered the ball dead? He was wrong, and an international cricketer should know better.
-
What did Forrester do wrong?
Meanwhile...what a game this is!
-
Glyn.
There are things that players just do not do. Bairstow, like thousands of batsmen before him, wouldn't even have considered the idea that the ball wasn't dead.
You say Carey was "doing his job". So, presumably, was Forrester. I'd have Bern eternally shamed as a Donny fan if we had taken advantage of that. I suspect Cummins will be here when the dust has settled.
If we do beat them now, this will be the greatest response in the history of sport.
-
Bairstow wasn’t doing anything to try and gain an advantage either. Very poor from the Aussies. It could though be the kick up the arse this England side needed for the rest of the series.
-
Can you explain this without going on about Forrester, as I said, I haven't read it and I'm not going to so stop comparing the two.
You still haven't said what the principle you getting so het up about is. Tell me that and I can compare that to what I've seen.
-
Bairstow wasn’t doing anything to try and gain an advantage either. Very poor from the Aussies. It could though be the kick up the arse this England side needed for the rest of the series.
Just because he wasn't seeking to gain an advantage doesn't mean he can't be given out stumped.
-
Carey threw the ball immediately after he caught it , if he had of been stood up to a slower bowler nothing would have made of it.
Bairstow was given out stumped NOT run out.
-
Carey threw the ball immediately after he caught it , if he had of been stood up to a slower bowler nothing would have made of it.
Bairstow was given out stumped NOT run out.
Exactly. He was doing his job.
I don't get how some people seem to think that the Aussies are somehow responsible or being unsporting because of Bairstow doing something stupid.
-
Carey threw the ball immediately after he caught it , if he had of been stood up to a slower bowler nothing would have made of it.
Bairstow was given out stumped NOT run out.
Exactly. He was doing his job.
I don't get how some people seem to think that the Aussies are somehow responsible for Bairstow doing something stupid.
Exactly this.
As someone said further up the thread, the Aussies have probably spotted in previous games that Bairstow is prone to go wandering and have probably been waiting for an opportunity like we have just seen.
Some goalkeepers are known for coming a long way out of their area when the ball is in the other half of the pitch so is it against the spirit of the game when someone puts a 60 yard shot over his head and into the net?
England v Australia at cricket is always hard fought.
-
Oh, and as for saying Bairtow considered the ball dead....
Carey threw the ball straightaway. Bairstow was in his ground when the ball was thrown.
So the ball was already in the air and going towards his wicket when Bairstow was supposed to have thought the ball was dead and went walkabout. Any batsman thinking that deserves to lose his wicket.
-
There's some stretching of points going on here.
If Bairstow had been batting out of his crease and hadn't returned to his ground, I'd have had no problem with him being given out.
If he had danced down the pitch, missed the ball and not made his ground, I'd have had no problem with him being given out.
If he had missed the ball then took a couple of steps down the pitch looking for a run, I'd have had no problem with him being given out.
If the bowler had unsettled him with a short ball, and he'd fallen over and not made his ground, I'd have had no problem with him being given out.
What is simply not acceptable is deviously chucking the ball at the stumps when clearly Bairstow has not left his crease and has clearly indicated he wasn't attempting to gain an advantage.
Broad's actions have emphasised how much against the accepted spirit of the game this is. He has repeatedly and exaggeratedly inquired of Carey if the ball is dead every time it went through to him.
The point being that batsmen don't ever have to ask that normally, because it's so f**king obvious how the spirit of the game applies.
-
So throwing the ball at the stumps as soon as you receive it is 'devious'.
Jesus wept.
-
So throwing the ball at the stumps as soon as you receive it is 'devious'.
Jesus wept.
Yes!
Because the batsman is in his ground and clearly not attempting to gain an advantage.
The batsman has made it crystal clear that he considers the ball dead.
-
Bairstow could be criticised for naivety.
The Umpires had no choice - under the rules of the game he was out.
But sustaining the appeal was poor form from the Australians. Totally out of keeping with the spirit of the game.
They deserve the brickbats coming their way.
You could see from the reactions of Stokes and Broad out in the middle (two very experienced test match cricketers) what they thought of the Aussies behaviour.
-
Bairstow could be criticised for naivety.
The Umpires had no choice - under the rules of the game he was out.
But sustaining the appeal was poor form from the Australians. Totally out of keeping with the spirit of the game.
They deserve the brickbats coming their way.
You could see from the reactions of Stokes and Broad (two very experienced test match cricketers) what they thought of the Aussies behaviour.
This. Absolutely.
-
Excellent comments from Stokes after the game.
"If the boot had been on the other foot, I might have had a little think about the spirit of the game."
That's the kind of sportsman I want to idolise. Because there are things bigger than winning at all costs.
-
Didn’t Ollie Pope do nearly the same last year against New Zealand
-
The Aussies are adept at cheating. Who was the guy that took the catch on the boundary yesterday? The cheating tw*t knew that he'd scraped the ball on the ground with his fingers on the top; yet he never owned up.
No wonder the crowd booed him when the dismissal was overruled.
-
Claiming that catch was definitely wrong and rightly so it got turn over. If you watch footage of test cricket from the 70s and 80s one fielder used to claim catches that weren’t under control regularly, he used to knock them in the air and claim that they were taken, there only used to be a couple of cameras at a game then, the player in question is one of the greatest batsmen ever , Viv Richards
-
I’m no cricket fan, but I’ve seen the incident.
Comparing it to Forrester is silly.
It’s more like when a keeper throws the ball down to kick it out with an attacker loitering behind him and nicking the ball off him to score.
The keeper might feel aggrieved, but no one to blame but himself due to lack of concentration.
-
The batsman has made it crystal clear that he considers the ball dead.
Not that it matters (because whatever Bairstow considered is completely irrelevant), but how did he do that before Carey threw the ball? I must have missed it.
-
The batsman has made it crystal clear that he considers the ball dead.
Not that it matters (because whatever Bairstow considered is completely irrelevant), but how did he do that before Carey threw the ball? I must have missed it.
You MUST have missed it. Watch it again.
Bairstow stands up after ducking. Still in his ground.
Looks across to the umpire. Still in his ground.
Looks down at his feet and scratches the ground (a tic many batsmen have after surviving tough deliveries). Still in his ground.
Every part of his body language says he has no intention of considering the ball live. He doesn't need to hold a banner up with those words on it.
If you watch the video again, you'll also see Khawarja at point (in the batman's eyeline) start to walk off in a clear "that's that action finished" sense.
Finally, and in my opinion crucially, is the wording on the definition of dead ball in the laws of the game. One of the definitions is that the ball has become dead when it is settled in the gloves of the wicket keeper.
Bairstow left the ball. In his ground. He was still in his ground when he will have heard the ball hit the keeper's gloves. He was still in his ground when, unknown to him, the keeper speculatively chucked the ball at the stumps.
In the spirit of the game, there is tacit agreement on these things. Bairstow absolutely ad a right within that spirit to consider the ball dead when he left it and the keeper caught it. That's precisely the point that Broad was emphasising by theatrically asking Carey numerous times if the ball was dead. He did it to emphasise the fact that no batsman ever has to do that. Its accepted as a matter of tacit agreement between batsman and keeper.
I'm truly bemused that so many people are sticking to a legalistic interpretation of the letter of the law and refusing to think about the spirit of the law that it represents.
-
The batsman has made it crystal clear that he considers the ball dead.
Not that it matters (because whatever Bairstow considered is completely irrelevant), but how did he do that before Carey threw the ball? I must have missed it.
You MUST have missed it. Watch it again.
Bairstow stands up after ducking. Still in his ground.
Looks across to the umpire. Still in his ground.
Looks down at his feet and scratches the ground (a tic many batsmen have after surviving tough deliveries). Still in his ground.
Every part of his body language says he has no intention of considering the ball live. He doesn't need to hold a banner up with those words on it.
If you watch the video again, you'll also see Khawarja at point (in the batman's eyeline) start to walk off in a clear "that's that action finished" sense.
Finally, and in my opinion crucially, is the wording on the definition of dead ball in the laws of the game. One of the definitions is that the ball has become dead when it is settled in the gloves of the wicket keeper.
Bairstow left the ball. In his ground. He was still in his ground when he will have heard the ball hit the keeper's gloves. He was still in his ground when, unknown to him, the keeper speculatively chucked the ball at the stumps.
In the spirit of the game, there is tacit agreement on these things. Bairstow absolutely ad a right within that spirit to consider the ball dead when he left it and the keeper caught it. That's precisely the point that Broad was emphasising by theatrically asking Carey numerous times if the ball was dead. He did it to emphasise the fact that no batsman ever has to do that. Its accepted as a matter of tacit agreement between batsman and keeper.
I'm truly bemused that so many people are sticking to a legalistic interpretation of the letter of the law and refusing to think about the spirit of the law that it represents.
Add to that the umpire had turned away and didn’t see it
-
And that Cummins himself was walking away from his position as soon as the ball passed Bairstow's back.
-
You can be right about something in law but still be morally wrong, as in this case.
Its very similar to when a bowler is running to the crease and is in his delivery stride and the off strike batsman is starting to back up before the ball is bowled, its in the spirit of the game for the bowler to warn the batsman about it and not just to stop in his delivery stride and run out the backing up batsman. i think this happened a while back and all hell broke loose about it, similar as now stating that the spirit of the game had been trashed.
It was in the laws but defiantly against the spirit of the game, as in this instance.
What Carey should of done was warned Bairstow about him doing this and that he had noticed it, if he did it again he would attempt to run him out, that would of been the correct and sporting way to deal with this situation. Instead we have an Australian team who already have two players who should of been banned for life for cheating in effect going against the spirit of the game to gain an advantage, again. If this is there professional attitude then as a sporting person i'd have absolutely no respect or desire to watch them ever play any sport again.
Nothing worse than a sporting cheat, except maybe a political che......... naa forget that, we don't want to be going down that road!
-
Aussies, going against the spirit of the game? Really?
(https://i.imgur.com/utwthmr.jpg)
Nah, it’s all about winning, by any means!
-
and as for the comment shown on the news from one of his team mates you will be remembered for this.....................
-
OK. I'm leaning back towards supporting the Aussies' action.
Khawaja and Warner were mouthed at in the Long Room at the lunch break.
The Telegraph reports that three MCC members have been suspended.
Bartholemew Frinton-Smythe
Humphrey Wigbert-Porter
Quinten Breckenridge.
You can kind of understand why the descendants of working class immigrants and transportees might be spurred to win at all costs!
-
Bairstow could be criticised for naivety.
The Umpires had no choice - under the rules of the game he was out.
But sustaining the appeal was poor form from the Australians. Totally out of keeping with the spirit of the game.
They deserve the brickbats coming their way.
You could see from the reactions of Stokes and Broad out in the middle (two very experienced test match cricketers) what they thought of the Aussies behaviour.
This is exactly what I think. Others may agree too whilst others totally disagree. Personally I wouldn't alter my view
The telling part of the above ?
But sustaining the appeal was poor form from the Australians. Totally out of keeping with the spirit of the game.
-
Having said that Stuart Broad , yes the one mentioned above also should have walked a few Ashes back when clearly out. Imo worse than yesterday ... so he can't hold the moral high ground
https://youtu.be/NSCg_aCD2KA
-
It was naive, even careless of Jonny Bairstow to presume that a team of Ausies wouldn't pull a stunt like that.
-
Having said that Stuart Broad , yes the one mentioned above also should have walked a few Ashes back when clearly out. Imo worse than yesterday ... so he can't hold the moral high ground
https://youtu.be/NSCg_aCD2KA
I don’t remember that Wolfie.
Was there a fuss made about that?
-
Having said that Stuart Broad , yes the one mentioned above also should have walked a few Ashes back when clearly out. Imo worse than yesterday ... so he can't hold the moral high ground
https://youtu.be/NSCg_aCD2KA
I don’t remember that Wolfie.
Was there a fuss made about that?
At Trent Bridge I believe
-
Bairstow could be criticised for naivety.
The Umpires had no choice - under the rules of the game he was out.
But sustaining the appeal was poor form from the Australians. Totally out of keeping with the spirit of the game.
They deserve the brickbats coming their way.
You could see from the reactions of Stokes and Broad out in the middle (two very experienced test match cricketers) what they thought of the Aussies behaviour.
This is exactly what I think. Others may agree too whilst others totally disagree. Personally I wouldn't alter my view
The telling part of the above ?
But sustaining the appeal was poor form from the Australians. Totally out of keeping with the spirit of the game.
Having thought about things overnight this is also my view now.
I don't actually blame Carey for throwing the ball, it looked like he was going to throw it anyway with maybe a possibility of Bairstow falling over, and he threw before Bairstow started walking. But given how it panned out I blame all the Aussies for the appeal and then not withdrawing it. IMHO time for the Australian Cricket Board to make a statement.
BTW, with regards to the first bit, IIRC dead ball used to be when the ball is at rest in the fielder's hand and it clearly wasn't. If Carey had caught the ball, walked forward a few steps and then thrown, then the umpires could have rightly called dead ball irrespective of whether over had been called.
-
Having said that Stuart Broad , yes the one mentioned above also should have walked a few Ashes back when clearly out. Imo worse than yesterday ... so he can't hold the moral high ground
https://youtu.be/NSCg_aCD2KA
I don’t remember that Wolfie.
Was there a fuss made about that?
At Trent Bridge I believe
Cheers Filo, what happened?
-
Bairstow could be criticised for naivety.
The Umpires had no choice - under the rules of the game he was out.
But sustaining the appeal was poor form from the Australians. Totally out of keeping with the spirit of the game.
They deserve the brickbats coming their way.
You could see from the reactions of Stokes and Broad out in the middle (two very experienced test match cricketers) what they thought of the Aussies behaviour.
This is exactly what I think. Others may agree too whilst others totally disagree. Personally I wouldn't alter my view
The telling part of the above ?
But sustaining the appeal was poor form from the Australians. Totally out of keeping with the spirit of the game.
Having thought about things overnight this is also my view now.
I don't actually blame Carey for throwing the ball, it looked like he was going to throw it anyway with maybe a possibility of Bairstow falling over, and he threw before Bairstow started walking. But given how it panned out I blame all the Aussies for the appeal and then not withdrawing it. IMHO time for the Australian Cricket Board to make a statement.
BTW, with regards to the first bit, IIRC dead ball used to be when the ball is at rest in the fielder's hand and it clearly wasn't. If Carey had caught the ball, walked forward a few steps and then thrown, then the umpires could have rightly called dead ball irrespective of whether over had been called.
Dutch, the key point there is absolutely that the ball was not settled in the keepers gloves.
It doesn’t matter whether Bairstow heard that or not, Carey threw the ball immediately after he received it.
-
Bairstow could be criticised for naivety.
The Umpires had no choice - under the rules of the game he was out.
But sustaining the appeal was poor form from the Australians. Totally out of keeping with the spirit of the game.
They deserve the brickbats coming their way.
You could see from the reactions of Stokes and Broad out in the middle (two very experienced test match cricketers) what they thought of the Aussies behaviour.
This is exactly what I think. Others may agree too whilst others totally disagree. Personally I wouldn't alter my view
The telling part of the above ?
But sustaining the appeal was poor form from the Australians. Totally out of keeping with the spirit of the game.
Having thought about things overnight this is also my view now.
I don't actually blame Carey for throwing the ball, it looked like he was going to throw it anyway with maybe a possibility of Bairstow falling over, and he threw before Bairstow started walking. But given how it panned out I blame all the Aussies for the appeal and then not withdrawing it. IMHO time for the Australian Cricket Board to make a statement.
BTW, with regards to the first bit, IIRC dead ball used to be when the ball is at rest in the fielder's hand and it clearly wasn't. If Carey had caught the ball, walked forward a few steps and then thrown, then the umpires could have rightly called dead ball irrespective of whether over had been called.
Dutch, the key point there is absolutely that the ball was not settled in the keepers gloves.
It doesn’t matter whether Bairstow heard that or not, Carey threw the ball immediately after he received it.
Exactly my point Hound :thumbsup:
-
Having said that Stuart Broad , yes the one mentioned above also should have walked a few Ashes back when clearly out. Imo worse than yesterday ... so he can't hold the moral high ground
https://youtu.be/NSCg_aCD2KA
I don’t remember that Wolfie.
Was there a fuss made about that?
Very big fuss for ages. All rest of Series and then same on his next visit
Look at link and explain how umpire missed it , and they didn't need the snickometer ffs , and listen to Bumbles assessment
-
DU
The point about the ball being dead is that every batsman would assume it to be once the keeper had caught it, with the batsman in his ground, in control of his movements and clearly not attempting to go for a run.
As I've said, Broad's theatrical requests to Carey to confirm that the ball was dead illustrate the issue beautifully. Batsmen don't do that because it never enters anyone's head that there's a need to do that. It's an unspoken agreement between sportsmen.
Carey's action was simply ridiculous. But the one I really blame for the situation is Cummins. He could and should have withdrawn the appeal. The fact that he didn't is a massive black mark against him.
-
Having said that Stuart Broad , yes the one mentioned above also should have walked a few Ashes back when clearly out. Imo worse than yesterday ... so he can't hold the moral high ground
https://youtu.be/NSCg_aCD2KA
I don’t remember that Wolfie.
Was there a fuss made about that?
Very big fuss for ages. All rest of Series and then same on his next visit
Look at link and explain how umpire missed it , and they didn't need the snickometer ffs , and listen to Bumbles assessment
I don't like it, but the modern spirit of the game is that no batsman ever walks. Just as the bowling side frequently appeal when they know damn well that there's no case.
I wish it wasn't like that, but everyone operates on the assumption that that is how it is.
If a player clearly gets an edge, doesn't walk, and the bowling side has no reviews left because they've managed their quota badly, the modern spirit of the game, accepted by everyone, is that's tough.
There's no equivalence with what Carey did yesterday. The accepted spirit of the game is that if a batsman leaves the ball, is in his ground and not attempting to run, the ball us de facto dead when the keeper catches it. Carey's actions totally broke that spirit. There's the difference.
-
DU
The point about the ball being dead is that every batsman would assume it to be once the keeper had caught it, with the batsman in his ground, in control of his movements and clearly not attempting to go for a run.
As I've said, Broad's theatrical requests to Carey to confirm that the ball was dead illustrate the issue beautifully. Batsmen don't do that because it never enters anyone's head that there's a need to do that. It's an unspoken agreement between sportsmen.
Carey's action was simply ridiculous. But the one I really blame for the situation is Cummins. He could and should have withdrawn the appeal. The fact that he didn't is a massive black mark against him.
I fully agree with everything except one point. Splitting hairs, but I don't think Carey's action was ridiculous at the time he threw, there was a chance Bairstow was batting outside his crease, or might fall over after ducking. It became ridiculous between throwing and hitting the stumps when it became clear Bairstow thought it was over and the ball was dead, and took a stroll. It became ridiculous only when the appeal came and was not retracted.
-
It was wrong by Carey, wrong by Cummings and the rest of the team.
It potentially cost England the game.
It won't be forgotten in a hurry.
-
Cummins has gone even further down in my estimation.
https://youtu.be/XkkIUayALSQ?t=120
Comparing this to Bairstow shying at the stumps in their innings is ridiculous. The Aussie policy was to bat 18 inches outside their crease. That brings the possibility of a stumping absolutely into play. If you're batting outside your crease, you cannot assume the ball is dead because the keeper has caught it. Cummins comparing the two is an insult to the intelligence of any cricket fan.
DU. I have to disagree with you, which I don't do often. Bairstow was upright and not looking remotely unstable before the ball even reached Carey. There is no way on earth that Carey thought Bairstow might be about to topple over and out of his ground as a consequence of ducking. He's spotted Bairstow leaving his ground previously to discuss with Stokes and pat down the pitch and decided to have a go. It's premeditated and absolutely against the spirit of the game. And he will have known that, as will his captain.
-
Cummins has gone even further down in my estimation.
https://youtu.be/XkkIUayALSQ?t=120
Comparing this to Bairstow shying at the stumps in their innings is ridiculous. The Aussie policy was to bat 18 inches outside their crease. That brings the possibility of a stumping absolutely into play. If you're batting outside your crease, you cannot assume the ball is dead because the keeper has caught it. Cummins comparing the two is an insult to the intelligence of any cricket fan.
DU. I have to disagree with you, which I don't do often. Bairstow was upright and not looking remotely unstable before the ball even reached Carey. There is no way on earth that Carey thought Bairstow might be about to topple over and out of his ground as a consequence of ducking. He's spotted Bairstow leaving his ground previously to discuss with Stokes and pat down the pitch and decided to have a go. It's premeditated and absolutely against the spirit of the game. And he will have known that, as will his captain.
I guess that is possible. I had always assumed it was coincidence that it was the last ball of the over, but if it was pre-meditated in the sense that they were deliberately looking to run Bairstow out as he was going for a chat, rather than being outside of his crease for more direct cricketing reasons (toppling over, batting outside of crease) it would make sense to do it on last ball when he is more likely to go for a chat. I had not considered that level of pre-meditation, and if true is many levels of despicable more than I first thought.
Edit: That would make it significantly worse than Mankad, which I loathe unless there is some warning first. In that case at least the batsman at the non-striker's end is looking for some sort of cricketing advantage. It would also make more sense of Stokes' comment about would have liked to see a warning first.
-
Cummins has gone even further down in my estimation.
https://youtu.be/XkkIUayALSQ?t=120
Comparing this to Bairstow shying at the stumps in their innings is ridiculous. The Aussie policy was to bat 18 inches outside their crease. That brings the possibility of a stumping absolutely into play. If you're batting outside your crease, you cannot assume the ball is dead because the keeper has caught it. Cummins comparing the two is an insult to the intelligence of any cricket fan.
DU. I have to disagree with you, which I don't do often. Bairstow was upright and not looking remotely unstable before the ball even reached Carey. There is no way on earth that Carey thought Bairstow might be about to topple over and out of his ground as a consequence of ducking. He's spotted Bairstow leaving his ground previously to discuss with Stokes and pat down the pitch and decided to have a go. It's premeditated and absolutely against the spirit of the game. And he will have known that, as will his captain.
I guess that is possible. I had always assumed it was coincidence that it was the last ball of the over, but if it was pre-meditated in the sense that they were deliberately looking to run Bairstow out as he was going for a chat, rather than being outside of his crease for more direct cricketing reasons (toppling over, batting outside of crease) it would make sense to do it on last ball when he is more likely to go for a chat. I had not considered that level of pre-meditation, and if true is many levels of despicable more than I first thought.
That is what happened, DU. Carey himself when questioned said he'd seen Bairstow do it several times in the over leading up to the last ball and he made the decision to do it. It's also shown in the TMS highlights that after each ball Bairstow scratched his mark in the crease with his boot and walked up the pitch.
-
DU
The point about the ball being dead is that every batsman would assume it to be once the keeper had caught it, with the batsman in his ground, in control of his movements and clearly not attempting to go for a run.
As I've said, Broad's theatrical requests to Carey to confirm that the ball was dead illustrate the issue beautifully. Batsmen don't do that because it never enters anyone's head that there's a need to do that. It's an unspoken agreement between sportsmen.
Carey's action was simply ridiculous. But the one I really blame for the situation is Cummins. He could and should have withdrawn the appeal. The fact that he didn't is a massive black mark against him.
And Carey's celebration high giving and screaming like a kid makes him my least favourite Australian for as long as I live .... because to save typing it out
It's premeditated and absolutely against the spirit of the game. And he will have known that, as will his captain
-
If they thought Lords was hostile, wait for Headingley
-
Cummins has gone even further down in my estimation.
https://youtu.be/XkkIUayALSQ?t=120
Comparing this to Bairstow shying at the stumps in their innings is ridiculous. The Aussie policy was to bat 18 inches outside their crease. That brings the possibility of a stumping absolutely into play. If you're batting outside your crease, you cannot assume the ball is dead because the keeper has caught it. Cummins comparing the two is an insult to the intelligence of any cricket fan.
DU. I have to disagree with you, which I don't do often. Bairstow was upright and not looking remotely unstable before the ball even reached Carey. There is no way on earth that Carey thought Bairstow might be about to topple over and out of his ground as a consequence of ducking. He's spotted Bairstow leaving his ground previously to discuss with Stokes and pat down the pitch and decided to have a go. It's premeditated and absolutely against the spirit of the game. And he will have known that, as will his captain.
I guess that is possible. I had always assumed it was coincidence that it was the last ball of the over, but if it was pre-meditated in the sense that they were deliberately looking to run Bairstow out as he was going for a chat, rather than being outside of his crease for more direct cricketing reasons (toppling over, batting outside of crease) it would make sense to do it on last ball when he is more likely to go for a chat. I had not considered that level of pre-meditation, and if true is many levels of despicable more than I first thought.
That is what happened, DU. Carey himself when questioned said he'd seen Bairstow do it several times in the over leading up to the last ball and he made the decision to do it. It's also shown in the TMS highlights that after each ball Bairstow scratched his mark in the crease with his boot and walked up the pitch.
Reluctantly and depressingly I now have to agree, and am more angry than I was at the time. I was making the elementary mistake of giving Australian cricketers the benefit of doubt in their behaviour. The folly of hope over experience. :headbang:
-
Why walk out of your crease when the ball has the stumps ?
Would he have done it if the wicket keeper was stood up ?
The one person to blame for this dismissal is Johnny Bairstow
-
Why walk out of your crease when the ball has the stumps ?
Would he have done it if the wicket keeper was stood up ?
The one person to blame for this dismissal is Johnny Bairstow
Bairstow and the Australians both being at fault aren’t mutually exclusive. Bairstow made a dopey mistake, the Australians made a premeditated, underhand decision.
-
Only one thing for it.
Let's give them a good hiding at Headingley and get bang back into the series.
Bring me my bow of burning gold!
-
Having said that Stuart Broad , yes the one mentioned above also should have walked a few Ashes back when clearly out. Imo worse than yesterday ... so he can't hold the moral high ground
https://youtu.be/NSCg_aCD2KA
I don’t remember that Wolfie.
Was there a fuss made about that?
Very big fuss for ages. All rest of Series and then same on his next visit
Look at link and explain how umpire missed it , and they didn't need the snickometer ffs , and listen to Bumbles assessment
I don't like it, but the modern spirit of the game is that no batsman ever walks. Just as the bowling side frequently appeal when they know damn well that there's no case.
I wish it wasn't like that, but everyone operates on the assumption that that is how it is.
If a player clearly gets an edge, doesn't walk, and the bowling side has no reviews left because they've managed their quota badly, the modern spirit of the game, accepted by everyone, is that's tough.
There's no equivalence with what Carey did yesterday. The accepted spirit of the game is that if a batsman leaves the ball, is in his ground and not attempting to run, the ball us de facto dead when the keeper catches it. Carey's actions totally broke that spirit. There's the difference.
Agree in the main but Adam Gilchrist, the greatest cricketer I ever saw live, walked in a WC cup at a crucial stage. Ironically, he also presented Carey with his first baggy and talked of playing the game with integrity. Be interesting to hear what he makes of Careys actions yesterday.
-
Having said that Stuart Broad , yes the one mentioned above also should have walked a few Ashes back when clearly out. Imo worse than yesterday ... so he can't hold the moral high ground
https://youtu.be/NSCg_aCD2KA
I don’t remember that Wolfie.
Was there a fuss made about that?
Very big fuss for ages. All rest of Series and then same on his next visit
Look at link and explain how umpire missed it , and they didn't need the snickometer ffs , and listen to Bumbles assessment
I don't like it, but the modern spirit of the game is that no batsman ever walks. Just as the bowling side frequently appeal when they know damn well that there's no case.
I wish it wasn't like that, but everyone operates on the assumption that that is how it is.
If a player clearly gets an edge, doesn't walk, and the bowling side has no reviews left because they've managed their quota badly, the modern spirit of the game, accepted by everyone, is that's tough.
There's no equivalence with what Carey did yesterday. The accepted spirit of the game is that if a batsman leaves the ball, is in his ground and not attempting to run, the ball us de facto dead when the keeper catches it. Carey's actions totally broke that spirit. There's the difference.
Agree in the main but Adam Gilchrist, the greatest cricketer I ever saw live, walked in a WC cup at a crucial stage. Ironically, he also presented Carey with his first baggy and talked of playing the game with integrity. Be interesting to hear what he makes of Careys actions yesterday.
Fair point. There are some personalities that transcend the game.
-
DU
The point about the ball being dead is that every batsman would assume it to be once the keeper had caught it, with the batsman in his ground, in control of his movements and clearly not attempting to go for a run.
As I've said, Broad's theatrical requests to Carey to confirm that the ball was dead illustrate the issue beautifully. Batsmen don't do that because it never enters anyone's head that there's a need to do that. It's an unspoken agreement between sportsmen.
Carey's action was simply ridiculous. But the one I really blame for the situation is Cummins. He could and should have withdrawn the appeal. The fact that he didn't is a massive black mark against him.
by the letter of the law the ball is not dead until it is back in the bowlers hand, stupid way to get out ,it may not be in the spirit of the game but you are playing for the ashes and you win at all costs , the British mentality is wrong to winning,if you cannot win by playing fair then most people would rather lose , this comes from a young age when you are told it's the taking part not winning that matters total rubbish in my eyes
-
That's not the definition of dead ball rich.
There are several definitions in the laws.
One of them is that the ball is dead when both sides accept it to be so. The movements of Khawaja and Cummins immediately after the ball passed Bairstow's back suggest they thoughtvitvwas dead.
A second is that the ball is dead when the umpires deem it to be. The umpire at the bowler's end immediately put his hand in his pocket as the ball dropped into Carey's gloves, indicating that he was thinking that was that.
A third is that the ball us dead when it is settled in the keeper's gloves. Clearly, Carey had made his mind up to have a shy at the stumps - Bairstow was in his ground when Carey threw the ball so it had to be premeditated - so technically of course the ball wasn't settled. But Bairstow, like every other batter in cricket in those circumstances would have assumed it to be. Why on earth should a keeper NOT settle with the ball when the batsman is clearly in his ground and not attempting to run?
On the moral side, every single indication was that the ball was dead. Only someone trying to get an advantagecin flagrant violation of the spirit of the game would act otherwise.
Think how dull cricket will be if the batsman has to ask the keeper if he considers the ball dead in every similar event in the future.
The key moral argument is that batting against constant short pitched 85-90mph bowling is excruciatingly mentally tough. Ask ant batsman how they cope with it, and the answer is to concentrate hard for the short interval before the bowler releases the ball and the aviation ends. In between, for the few seconds they have, batsmen relax and stop focusing hard. Bairstow was clearly doing that. Carey and Cummins took advantage of that. If that became accepted, it totally changes the dynamic of the game. No one wants that.
Yes they got an advantage but I'm certain they wished they hadn't. If they have any aims beyond winning at all costs. Sport is about far more than winning at all costs.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-66094186
Towards the end of this article it says Cummins
also accused the English team of hypocrisy in game tactics - as match footage showed Bairstow trying to stump Australian batters in the same manner two days prior to the final day incident.
Can anybody verify this? I haven't seen anything similar, and reckon this must be a false equivalence. Maybe an Australia batter was batting outside his crease to a quick bowler and Bairstow tried to throw the stumps down? As we have discussed that would be totally legitimate and not against the spirit either. There is a world of difference between throwing the ball when someone is out of the crease trying to gain an advantage, and throwing when a batter is in his crease and then walks for a chat thinking it is over. If that is the case this statement of Cummins needs to be called out.
-
DU
Several of the Aussie batsmen took stance a good 12 inches out of their crease. Its totally disingenuous of Cummins to compare the two. He's gone right down in my estimation. Excellent bowler but a t**t.
-
Have a look on YouTube at the one day match between England and New Zealand and the incident between Sidebottom and Elliott, when Collingwood was captain if you want to see injustice on a cricket pitch.
On my cricket club’s WhatsApp group the vast majority say that the fault is Bairstow’s
-
Dickie Bird was interviewed on the local news yesterday.
He says that until the umpire calls “over” after the sixth ball that the ball isn’t dead.
Bairstow was careless to wander off.
-
No-one is denying Bairstow was at fault and out according to all rules.
If that had been Warner batting I would have called for Stokes to retract the appeal, and maybe call it a warning. I would have been very embarrassed and probably stopped watching because if we were to win, the result in my mind would be tainted.
How do you stand on Mankad-ing without a warning?
The colossal irony here is that this all comes at a moment when both sides have embraced a full-on bodyline tactic, the one that caused such a rumpus in even political relations with Australia. The only difference now is helmets and a bit more padding, and a slight restriction on leg side fielders behind square.
-
Have a look on YouTube at the one day match between England and New Zealand and the incident between Sidebottom and Elliott, when Collingwood was captain if you want to see injustice on a cricket pitch.
On my cricket club’s WhatsApp group the vast majority say that the fault is Bairstow’s
And Collingwood apologised soon afterwards and said he wished he'd rescinded the appeal. Which is why I blame Cummins. He could have been a leader and set an example.
-
And as I said on Page 1 , I think , Broad not walking when clearly out in a Test we went on to win
Link is there as well
-
And as I said on Page 1 , I think , Broad not walking when clearly out in a Test we went on to win
Link is there as well
I just had a look at that link wolfie, thanks for posting it.
I didn’t know about that incident.
I can’t recall anything written about it on here, but maybe I missed it.
-
Not sure it got much coverage apart from in Australia
My point , cos I like to play fair is that there was Stuart Broad the other day asking Carey pointedly and after every ball "is that dead" and yet the same (brilliant bloke) Stuart Broad didn't walk in that Test Match when he was totally out. Every Aussie on the planet knew and probably every Englishman
However the Oz had no reviews left cos they ballsed up a few before then and lost them so they couldn't call for a review which let's face it would have been a formality
So I think what Carey and Cummings did was way past " the line" but Stuart Broad (English God) did something equally reprehensible so he / we can't really get too uppity.
It's deja Vu , or what goes around , comes around.
I'm still seething but I can't have it both ways
-
Yeah, well we won that test so not as many English people would complain about it I suppose.
Perhaps that why it didn’t get a mention on here.
Like Broad said in his interview, he never even considered walking even though he knew he was out.
-
Looks like it could be a rain hampered test from day 3 onwards. We’re going to have to go aggressive.
Strong batting line up with a long tail with Ali, Wood and Woakes coming in.
I think Jimmy’s time is finally up I’m afraid.
-
Looks like it could be a rain hampered test from day 3 onwards. We’re going to have to go aggressive.
Strong batting line up with a long tail with Ali, Wood and Woakes coming in.
I think Jimmy’s time is finally up I’m afraid.
Anderson's performance in the second test was an odd one, he bowled well, managed to beat the bat plenty and gave nothing away runs wise but the wickets did not come for him, conditions should of been just about perfect for his type of swing and seam.
Not sure what type of pitch has taken shape in Leeds but atmospheric conditions there are always advantageous to Anderson's style of bowling, with the weather set to be changeable as well i've got a feeling that they may rue resting him for this one.
Id have said get your best bowler and fastest bowlers playing in this match, get the win and then worry about their fitness after the event, if we don't get the result then it's all academic after that.
Id have played Anderson in front of Robinson who is very hit and miss for me, not sure bringing Woakes in improves the side, Thought Tounge should have had another go in tandem with Wood, they may go for a few but te strike rate should compensate.
-
What’s wrong with Bairstow?!
-
He needs to make up for it with a century tomorrow.
-
... and back to the cheaters or probably the not in the spirit of the game mob .... How can we ever forget this ?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underarm_bowling_incident_of_1981
-
... and back to the cheaters or probably the not in the spirit of the game mob .... How can we ever forget this ?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underarm_bowling_incident_of_1981
Good post Wolfie.
What goes round eh.
-
The footage
https://youtu.be/TtaWtAxHVsw
-
The footage
https://youtu.be/TtaWtAxHVsw
They're not all the same. Listen to the great Richie Benaud's view at the end of that footage. "One of the worst thing I've ever seen done on a cricket pitch."
-
Look on YouTube for Most Controversial Wickets.
Lots of decisions within the laws but some might say not the done thing.
The first one on there is England running out an Aussie who had collided with an England bowler when attempting a run.
-
Funny incident once at HM Borstal Hatfield where we were having a 6 aside Comp
I was non striker and Batsman at other end took a ball right where it hurts most and (he swore almost every other word anyway) bellowed ooooh mi b*****k
I was amused that he said it in the singular, and it was heard around the Ground I'm sure
He went down like a sack of spuds and their Keeper walked to front of Stumps , picked up the Ball and knock off the Bails
Another reminder of unsporting behaviour
-
At Headingley today for the 4th day.
Without that rain yesterday I would not be seeing much if any cricket today.
Come on England let’s get the job done and keep the Ashes alive.
-
Given the propensity of our batsmen for gifting their wickets I certainly am not confident that we'll do it. They cannot keep leaving it all to the captain to get us over the line.
-
At Headingley today for the 4th day.
Without that rain yesterday I would not be seeing much if any cricket today.
Come on England let’s get the job done and keep the Ashes alive.
Enjoy. I was there for the 2nd day on Friday and it was a belter.
-
Given the propensity of our batsmen for gifting their wickets I certainly am not confident that we'll do it. They cannot keep leaving it all to the captain to get us over the line.
Well it looks as though he might have to do it again.
Crawley and Root gave their wickets away playing shots they should have left.
It’s going to be tense I reckon this afternoon.
-
Great finish phew!
-
Roll on Old Trafford. I've got tickets for day 5. Hope I'm celebrating 2-2 rather than walking back to the station with a face like a slapped arse.
-
Yes that was tense.
When Brook went I feared the worse.
Woakes and Wood did brilliantly.
-
Fantastic win and great that we’ve kept the series alive. Really hope that it doesn’t paper over the cracks though, and Bairstow is out for Foakes for the next test. I think I’d replace Robinson as well, Tongue the obvious choice but wouldn’t be too disappointed to see Jimmy get one last shot (although I think his race is pretty much run).
I’d probably also keep Mo at 3 - seems like no one else wants to bat there, he’s pretty much a walking wicket down the order anyway and if he sees off a few more overs it’s a bonus. I’ve no confidence in Lawrence, no idea if there’s anyone else capable and at least this way you get to keep Mo’s bowling in the side.
-
I’ve been out all day, just got back and tuned in to the iPad.
Great win, watched some highlights and it looks as though it was a belter of a day.
For the second day in a row, well done England.
-
Fantastic effort from the team today to win that match, if the new broom has done anything it has made our batting much more resilient, in te past we would of been blown away after Root departed, but they kept it going, Well done too for Woakes who i originally said didn't bring much to the side, he had a really good game and steadied the ship when he cam in with 80odd still to get. His wickets at opportune times also were very important.
Great that they take it all on to Old Trafford still in with a shout, i've got a feeling this win, coupled with the very close thing in the second test will galvanise the squad to kick on and sow doubt in the Aussies who always look to me to be inches from their brittle confidence, front about to be shattered .
All to play for, its been a fantastic Ashes so far, with the front on Stokes and McCallum we still have every chance.
-
Foakes in yes or no?
-
Foakes in yes or no?
Easy yes. Bairstow is a liability right now and his confidence has nosedived which is impacting his batting. Needs taking out of the firing line.
-
Foakes should of been in the side from the off, wicket keeping is such a technical and specialised job that you should never take a chance with competent batsmen who keep wicket, big difference.
When you add up all the chances that JB has not taken and more importantly at the times they occurred its a massive game changer to have someone like Foakes who many top pundits rate as the best in the world right now.
If the new management broom had just tempered their plans to have the full on BAZBALL and ensured that this key position was covered then i'm sure we would be now in an Ashes leading position.
We have a developing front 5 front line batsmen, with Stokes at 6 and Foakes at 7 then the 4 frontline bowlers we should be capable of creating big enough scores to win matches.
I know its difficult to extrapolate how having a top class wicketkeeper can ensure you don't end up having to chase big scores because of the missed opportunities behind the wicket but i'm sure in this series these strengths would of been the game changer for us in the series so far.
-
I thought we made hard work of it, best part of two days to knock the runs off, Stokes and Root shouldn’t be chasing balls down the leg side in that position, they gifted their wickets and brought pressure on England, thankfully we got there in the end
-
Jonny Bairstow is a very competent WK and can Bat for sure , but he is making errors , probably more than that cheating piece of s**t Carey , so he needs to go at least temporarily
As a Tyke judging a Tyke and having watched his dad keep Wicket for Yorkshire I feel semi traitorous but it's a pragmatic opinion
Get the cheating ( sorry gamesmanship only ) Aussies beaten 3 -2 please
-
I was on the Western terrace yesterday. A brilliant day's entertainment but we were more than a little worried when Stokes went with plenty of runs still required. Root was playing himself in nicely then needlessly played a stupid shot and Bairstow was bobbins again. The last 50 runs seemed to tick over in no time at all though. Excellent from the England lower order.
-
Yes , I would have loved to be there yesterday but listening to Sky commentary Hugh Laurie had rung or texted to say something like every run scored against England aged him a day
Every wicket England lost aged him a Decade
That would have been me and especially the wickets of Crawley and Rooooot
But well done England , come on 3 2 will do
-
This is getting unpleasurably tense. Moreso with tomorrow's weather forecast. (Unpleasurable isn't a word but I hope you get my drift).
-
While there is of course tension that the weather might wash away England's brilliant effort in this match I have to say I did take enormous pleasure in seeing the Aussies visibly rattled - we don't see that very often.
-
Its a shame there’ll be no more play, a good innings thumping would have been nice, that 6 was enormous by Johnny
-
Match drawn. Batted probably too long. I don't see another over bowled now. Raining through until Sunday night
-
Outside chance of a couple of hours play late tomorrow. It would be a real shame if the weather killed the best series in history.
-
Match drawn. Batted probably too long. I don't see another over bowled now. Raining through until Sunday night
Probably history will conclude we batted too long , and should have quit on 150 lead.
We knew we had to bowl them out to keep Ashes alive but maybe just maybe we may win if we get the chance weather wise.
Come on Mark Wood. 6 Balls is all it takes at 90 plus mph
-
The day's rest today for the bowlers could improve the chances of snuffing them out tomorrow in a couple of hours if that window does materialise.
-
Let's hope so. I would love it to go to The Oval with everything on the line
Local forecast says rain all day today and tomorrow though so they will retain the Ashes in the Dressing Room
Maybe we will go on to tie series 2-2 with Old Trafford a draw
-
Some of you weather forecasters on here are as bad as those at the Met Office.
-
Yabadabadoo. 5 wickets down now.
It's on.
-
What a shame it's going to be decided like this after 3 really good matches
-
Some of you weather forecasters on here are as bad as those at the Met Office.
Turns out those Weather forecasters are not too bad eh?
-
Roll on Old Trafford. I've got tickets for day 5. Hope I'm celebrating 2-2 rather than walking back to the station with a face like a slapped arse.
Blimey, just come back onto this topic & yours is the first post I see.
I've been bored shitless at home all day, God knows how you've held up. I hope you're in a pub somewhere, at least.
What a grim ending, I hope we can still find the will to smash em all over The Oval & restore some kind of justice.
-
Some of you weather forecasters on here are as bad as those at the Met Office.
Turns out those Weather forecasters are not too bad eh?
They were yesterday.
-
Cheated to win the 2nd test and rain rescued them here, retaining or winning the ashes will be hollow for them
-
I bet it isn't
However that said I hope we shred them at The Oval to make it 2-2.
We had chances to take it to them and I am in no position to criticise the Captain and Management . Like McCann I put my trust in him and them because I have no expertise whatsoever
I trust them and hope.
-
Roll on Old Trafford. I've got tickets for day 5. Hope I'm celebrating 2-2 rather than walking back to the station with a face like a slapped arse.
Blimey, just come back onto this topic & yours is the first post I see.
I've been bored shitless at home all day, God knows how you've held up. I hope you're in a pub somewhere, at least.
What a grim ending, I hope we can still find the will to smash em all over The Oval & restore some kind of justice.
Not long got home. Paid for 1 flat pint at £6.60 in the ground then decided to set up camp in a pub down the road for the rest of the day.
Gutted. Pissing weather.
-
I bet it isn't
However that said I hope we shred them at The Oval to make it 2-2.
We had chances to take it to them and I am in no position to criticise the Captain and Management . Like McCann I put my trust in him and them because I have no expertise whatsoever
I trust them and hope.
Agree on the first point DW but I can't help feeling we cheated ourselves out of the win at Edgbaston. For so many of the batsmen to gift their wickets in the way they did from a very strong position was unforgivable. We should have been going to Old Trafford 2-1 up not 2-1 down.
I am encouraged though that they have learned from this series and the intelligent Bazball they played at OT looks to be a far more promising prospect for future success. Still, somebody really needs to give Ducket a bloody good talking to about his blithe insistence that trying to play every ball is ok for Test cricket just because "that's the way I play". He needs reminding cricket is a team game and he certainly isn't an irreplaceable part of it.
-
I bet it isn't
However that said I hope we shred them at The Oval to make it 2-2.
We had chances to take it to them and I am in no position to criticise the Captain and Management . Like McCann I put my trust in him and them because I have no expertise whatsoever
I trust them and hope.
Agree on the first point DW but I can't help feeling we cheated ourselves out of the win at Edgbaston. For so many of the batsmen to gift their wickets in the way they did from a very strong position was unforgivable. We should have been going to Old Trafford 2-1 up not 2-1 down.
I am encouraged though that they have learned from this series and the intelligent Bazball they played at OT looks to be a far more promising prospect for future success. Still, somebody really needs to give Ducket a bloody good talking to about his blithe insistence that trying to play every ball is ok for Test cricket just because "that's the way I play". He needs reminding cricket is a team game and he certainly isn't an irreplaceable part of it.
This morning was a perfect example of why Duckett's approach is broadly right.
The ball was zipping around all over the place. A bowling attack as good as this Aussie one was always going to take wickets. Losing three in the first 75 mins was about par for the course. In the old days, given the conditions, you could be 25-3 after that time if you'd tried to defend. As it was, Duckett's aggression meant we were 75-3. Very different scenario and momentum.
Brook has capitalised on that. Yes Carey dropped a dolly, but that happens. Brook has been remorselessly aggressive. Another hour of that and he could tip the balance massively in our favour.
-
Ah well...
-
You're disregarding the importance of putting work into the legs of the bowlers and taking the edge off the new ball to improve the prospects for the middle-order run scorers. I'll stick with my take on Ducket, thanks.
-
Australia have scored 65 runs off the bat in the first 40 overs.
That may or may not be effective. It would certainly destroy test cricket if everyone played that way.
-
Makes Chris Tavare seem positively reckless.
-
Marnus Labuscagne. The test cricket equivalent of Dave Cusack with his arm up for offside.
Efficacy is debatable.
Enjoyment of watching it is zero.
-
Of course the Aussies don’t need to chase a win, so why would they need to hurry the scoring along.
-
Of course the Aussies don’t need to chase a win, so why would they need to hurry the scoring along.
Their slow scoring rate isn’t looking like such a good strategy now that they’re 6 down and still over a hundred behind. They need a decent wag from the tail now and I’m sure we won’t see the rate continue at 2.5 an over.
-
11,600 v 3400 say Smith out
I try to be objective and I can't see how he isn't given run out
Bairstow has clearly moved the Stump backwards and Smith is still approx 2 inches out of his ground . Maybe one frame or two frames later and he would be categorically out ( although that calls for speculation )
-
11,600 v 3400 say Smith out
I try to be objective and I can't see how he isn't given run out
Bairstow has clearly moved the Stump backwards and Smith is still approx 2 inches out of his ground . Maybe one frame or two frames later and he would be categorically out ( although that calls for speculation )
If those flashing Bails were used it would have been out
-
Great start to the second innings this, putting the screws on Cummings.
-
Comparing these 2 teams on approach, performance and sportsmanship.
It would be an absolute travesty of justice if Australia win this series.
-
It's OK.
Warner will get a duck, then Khawaja and Labuschagne will bat for the next two days and put 95 on.
-
Nailed on Broad gets Warner tomorrow. For old times sake.
-
Weather could play a part.
Hope we skittle em
-
That has to have been the best Test series of all time. And to finish it off with a spell like that from Broad. Just legendary stuff.
-
An amazing series and what an ending for Stuart Broad
-
Great afternoons cricket, well done Broady, special mention to Moeen and Woakes and what a catch by Bairstow, the Rain at Old Trafford robbed us of the Ashes and Australia have been out played in the series
-
This is another reason cricket doesn’t do it for me. I’ve seen and listened to enough of this series to know that Australia going home with the Ashes makes a mockery of the sport.
-
It’s a game of fine margins and taking your opportunities!
The Aussies did enough and were lucky with the rain at OT.
It’s now up to England to carry on doing the good stuff and cut out throwing wickets away.
-
I wouldn't say Australia have been out played Filo.
They won the first two tests fair and square. Yes, probably the rain saved them at Manchester, but we'll never know. The closeness of the other 4 results and the fact that maybe 50 of 75 sessions have seen the advantage bob one way then another shows how tight the entire series has been.
It's been an absolute privilege to watch. Sport at its very best and most captivating.
-
I’ve listened to pretty much all of it on the radio and it’s been a great few weeks. I’ve even managed to get my none sport loving work colleague talking about it after a weekend.
-
I wouldn't say Australia have been out played Filo.
They won the first two tests fair and square. Yes, probably the rain saved them at Manchester, but we'll never know. The closeness of the other 4 results and the fact that maybe 50 of 75 sessions have seen the advantage bob one way then another shows how tight the entire series has been.
It's been an absolute privilege to watch. Sport at its very best and most captivating.
They won the 1st test through an early declaration from England, they cheated in the second test and won, lost tthe third test, got lucky with the rain in the Fourth tes when they were on the verge of a hammering, and lost the fifth test, so yes, I would say they’ve been outplayed, they should have won today from the position they were in after the rain, they crumbled when the pressure was on
-
Australia were gifted the first two tests by England declaring too early, gifting their wickets recklessly and by not taking their chances in the field, nevertheless, they have managed to retain the Ashes in English conditions whilst looking the weakest Ausie side In decades.
England on the other hand went into the series on a transformation in their fortunes resulting from Bazball but not yet having tested themselves agains the best in the world. It was plainly evident to anyone watching the first two tests that they quickly needed to learn and modify their methods to stand any chance of salvaging anything from the series and (I would suggest) even salvaging Bazball itself. And how they showed they were good enough to do both of those things, absolutely blasting the Ausies in the last three tests and totally justifying themselves.
Comparing the two sides man for man it's hard to conclude that England are stronger than Australia who, as always have an immense bowling attack and bat right through their tail but what Bazball has done is somehow make the England team greater than the sum of it parts and to beat Australia at their own game.
-
Great post iaatp
Hard to disagree with any of that
-
Does anyone else think the Aussies were very much 'on their best behaviour' after the Carey/Bairstow incident?
I have never seen an Aussie side be less aggressive and in your face than in the 3 games after that - to the detriment of their effectiveness IMHO. It was almost as if they reckoned, or someone had said to them, 'that went too far and we need to do a PR job'. I might just be imagining it but it did strike me that there was a definite attempt to be very pally in the last three matches, and until that last innings Carey himself did not bat well. More mind games with Broad the stirrer as always :lol:
-
Does anyone else think the Aussies were very much 'on their best behaviour' after the Carey/Bairstow incident?
I have never seen an Aussie side be less aggressive and in your face than in the 3 games after that - to the detriment of their effectiveness IMHO. It was almost as if they reckoned, or someone had said to them, 'that went too far and we need to do a PR job'. I might just be imagining it but it did strike me that there was a definite attempt to be very pally in the last three matches, and until that last innings Carey himself did not bat well. More mind games with Broad the stirrer as always :lol:
I though Cummins carried on being a smug t**t in interviews
-
I've avoided watching the Australian's interviews as their smugness grinds my gears but I suppose when you have been as dominant as they have for as long as they have it'd be hard not to be smug.
On the Bairstow stumping, I said at the time it was stupid of him but nevertheless I let the Aussie attitude wind me up but now having had time to cool down I can only blame Bairstow, it was stupid on his part and the excuse that it was an unspoken rule is just bollox, the Aussies played to the rules. There has to be a finite moment when the ball is unequivocally dead and Jonny was playing to his own rule.
-
I will agree with you pies, but IMHO one consequence must be that the expression 'that's not cricket' can never be used again. Cricket has lost the moral high ground.
-
Agreed, D.U.
-
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the loss for the Aussies of the off spinner, Lyon for a great deal of the series.This is a bowler who has allowed the Aussies to dominate for such a long time by tying an end down while the fast bowlers take a break and spell each other from the other end.
The fact they lost his services must of played havoc with their bowling strategy, the young kid who came in was not really trusted and was taken for runs in quite a few spells.
Shame really as they will no doubt use his absence as a major factor in not winning the series, it would of been nice to not allow them any get out clause.
They've also proved once and for all that the term "whinging pom" could not have been more ironic.
-
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the loss for the Aussies of the off spinner, Lyon for a great deal of the series.This is a bowler who has allowed the Aussies to dominate for such a long time by tying an end down while the fast bowlers take a break and spell each other from the other end.
The fact they lost his services must of played havoc with their bowling strategy, the young kid who came in was not really trusted and was taken for runs in quite a few spells.
Shame really as they will no doubt use his absence as a major factor in not winning the series, it would of been nice to not allow them any get out clause.
They've also proved once and for all that the term "whinging pom" could not have been more ironic.
We can counter that with losing our main spinner Leach, and also Pope leaving us with a problem at nr 3. Stand in Moeen was hampered by injury & blisters as well. I think the sides were even on that score.
-
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the loss for the Aussies of the off spinner, Lyon for a great deal of the series.This is a bowler who has allowed the Aussies to dominate for such a long time by tying an end down while the fast bowlers take a break and spell each other from the other end.
The fact they lost his services must of played havoc with their bowling strategy, the young kid who came in was not really trusted and was taken for runs in quite a few spells.
Shame really as they will no doubt use his absence as a major factor in not winning the series, it would of been nice to not allow them any get out clause.
They've also proved once and for all that the term "whinging pom" could not have been more ironic.
I never quite understood the term 'pom' for a Brit. It supposedly stands for 'prisoner of his/her majesty' for prisoner immigrants from the UK. But surely all these and their descendants are long Australian and not British? :lol:
-
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the loss for the Aussies of the off spinner, Lyon for a great deal of the series.This is a bowler who has allowed the Aussies to dominate for such a long time by tying an end down while the fast bowlers take a break and spell each other from the other end.
The fact they lost his services must of played havoc with their bowling strategy, the young kid who came in was not really trusted and was taken for runs in quite a few spells.
Shame really as they will no doubt use his absence as a major factor in not winning the series, it would of been nice to not allow them any get out clause.
They've also proved once and for all that the term "whinging pom" could not have been more ironic.
I never quite understood the term 'pom' for a Brit. It supposedly stands for 'prisoner of his/her majesty' for prisoner immigrants from the UK. But surely all these and their descendants are long Australian and not British? :lol:
I didn't know that, DU. Any idea as to why the Yanks call us "limeys"?
-
According to Wiki:
Limey" (from lime / lemon) is a predominantly American slang nickname for a British person. The word has been around since the mid 19th century.
The term is thought to have originated in the 1850s as lime-juicer, later shortened to "limey", and was originally used as a derogatory word for sailors in the British Royal Navy. Since the early 19th century, it had been the practice of the Royal Navy to add lemon juice to the sailors' daily ration of grog (watered-down rum).
Edit: It is amazing how many phrases originate from the Navy - 'son if a gun' and 'freeze the balls off a brass monkey' being two
-
Not heard that one, Dutch. My understanding of the term Pom was that it was based on the idea that Brits have a complexion like the inside of a pomegranate.
-
Not heard that one, Dutch. My understanding of the term Pom was that it was based on the idea that Brits have a complexion like the inside of a pomegranate.
tbf pies, both have been suggested as origins of 'pom'
-
I wouldn't say Australia have been out played Filo.
They won the first two tests fair and square. Yes, probably the rain saved them at Manchester, but we'll never know. The closeness of the other 4 results and the fact that maybe 50 of 75 sessions have seen the advantage bob one way then another shows how tight the entire series has been.
It's been an absolute privilege to watch. Sport at its very best and most captivating.
I saw a stat somewhere , forgotten the exact number, but it was something like before this year in the history of all Ashes tests since 1877, only 25 had been decided by 3 wickets or less, or 50 runs or less. 4 out of 5 of this series have been added to that. That summarises for me how close this series has been, and 2-2 not an unfair result.
-
Not heard that one, Dutch. My understanding of the term Pom was that it was based on the idea that Brits have a complexion like the inside of a pomegranate.
I read a book recently that said it came from the fact that "immigrant" sounded like "pomegranate" to the earlier settlers. And most of the 19th century immigrants were British.
-
While we are talking about Australia and immigration, Noel Coward was once stopped by an Australian border guard at passport control.
He replied in that uber-camp voice "Oh my dear boy. I had no idea it was still a requirement."
-
I thought Pom or Pommie originated from ‘Prisoner Of Mother England’
-
Australia were gifted the first two tests by England declaring too early, gifting their wickets recklessly and by not taking their chances in the field, nevertheless, they have managed to retain the Ashes in English conditions whilst looking the weakest Ausie side In decades.
England on the other hand went into the series on a transformation in their fortunes resulting from Bazball but not yet having tested themselves agains the best in the world. It was plainly evident to anyone watching the first two tests that they quickly needed to learn and modify their methods to stand any chance of salvaging anything from the series and (I would suggest) even salvaging Bazball itself. And how they showed they were good enough to do both of those things, absolutely blasting the Ausies in the last three tests and totally justifying themselves.
Comparing the two sides man for man it's hard to conclude that England are stronger than Australia who, as always have an immense bowling attack and bat right through their tail but what Bazball has done is somehow make the England team greater than the sum of it parts and to beat Australia at their own game.
Exactly how I saw the series, worded far better than I could have though.