Cricket - Matches & General Discussion Thread

[DavidM]

7 minutes ago, Gerrumonside ref said:

Will the Long Room be getting ready their ‘Welcome to Hell’ banner now for the Aussies?

They’re all on the tables bouncing up and down letting flares off 

[bobbruce]

23 minutes ago, DavidM said:

They’re all on the tables bouncing up and down letting flares off 

Hopefully England last long enough so they can get back from the shop buying black hoodies and ski masks. 

[Derwent]

2 hours ago, gingerjon said:

Aussies entirely in the right. Brain fart from Bairstow.

Technically out on strict interpretation of the laws but the on field umpires should have given not out. The umpire at the bowlers end wasn’t looking and was walking away unclipping the bowler’s cap and was as bamboozled as anyone when the Aussies appealed. Clearly he thought the ball was dead.

[gingerjon]

2 minutes ago, Derwent said:

Technically out on strict interpretation of the laws but the on field umpires should have given not out. The umpire at the bowlers end wasn’t looking and was walking away unclipping the bowler’s cap and was as bamboozled as anyone when the Aussies appealed. Clearly he thought the ball was dead.

If Carey had paused before returning the ball I'd agree but he didn't. It was a straightforward receive and throw. The ball wasn't dead as the fielding side didn't believe it to be so - and the umpire's assessment has to be based on whether both sides are acting as if the ball is dead (apparently - this was the guy from Wisden's interpretation).

[JonM]

2 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

Hopefully England last long enough so they can get back from the shop buying black hoodies and ski masks. 

A work colleague in India the other week was riffing on the subject that the ICC had been taking lessons from Vince McMahon and professional wrestling and that the Aussie team had been designated as 'heels' - the wrestling bad guys who cheat, use dirty tactics, insult the locals, be rude to journalists and so on, in order to build up interest when they play in India, England, South Africa etc. Maybe IMG will suggest something similar for RL.

[Old Frightful]

Oh ballax!

[Old Frightful]

2 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

If Carey had paused before returning the ball I'd agree but he didn't. It was a straightforward receive and throw. The ball wasn't dead as the fielding side didn't believe it to be so - and the umpire's assessment has to be based on whether both sides are acting as if the ball is dead (apparently - this was the guy from Wisden's interpretation).

Are you sure it was Carey?

His actions led me to believe it might have been Theo Fages.

[Futtocks]

Brave effort from the tail, but the damage was already done.

That's two tests gone that we could have won.

[bobbruce]

2 minutes ago, JonM said:

A work colleague in India the other week was riffing on the subject that the ICC had been taking lessons from Vince McMahon and professional wrestling and that the Aussie team had been designated as 'heels' - the wrestling bad guys who cheat, use dirty tactics, insult the locals, be rude to journalists and so on, in order to build up interest when they play in India, England, South Africa etc. Maybe IMG will suggest something similar for RL.

I’m not sure you’d need any outside advice to come up with that. 

[Derwent]

2 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

If Carey had paused before returning the ball I'd agree but he didn't. It was a straightforward receive and throw. The ball wasn't dead as the fielding side didn't believe it to be so - and the umpire's assessment has to be based on whether both sides are acting as if the ball is dead (apparently - this was the guy from Wisden's interpretation).

As I said it was technically out. But there’s written laws and there’s common sense application of them. I don’t believe the latter took place. I don’t blame Carey I blame the umpire. If Bairstow sees him walking away and preparing to give the bowler his cap then it’s understandable why he believed the ball to be dead. 

[gingerjon]

31 minutes ago, Derwent said:

As I said it was technically out. But there’s written laws and there’s common sense application of them. I don’t believe the latter took place. I don’t blame Carey I blame the umpire. If Bairstow sees him walking away and preparing to give the bowler his cap then it’s understandable why he believed the ball to be dead. 

I disagree but then, as I've said, I also think Mankads are entirely legitimate and the 'Spirit of Cricket' should never trump the actual laws of cricket.

Either way, hopefully the absolute morons in the Long Room will lose their MCC memberships. The custodians of said Spirit of Cricket can't be behaving that way to players, no matter what they've done.

[gingerjon]

Oh, and this, from the ever correct (mostly) Izzy Westbury

 

[Futtocks]

Top marks to Cap'n Pat for this response to a leading question.

 

[17 stone giant]

Great game. England got way closer than I thought we would at start of play this morning.

Regarding the catches (Smith and Starc), I can see both sides of the argument. You can make a case for both being out, and both being not out. It comes down to an interpretation of the rules. With that in mind, I think you just have to take it on the chin - sometimes they'll go in your favour and sometimes they won't.

I feel the same about Bairstow's dismissal. It was naive from him, and maybe a bit mean spirited from the Aussies, but still within the laws of the game. These things happen - I don't think any team has the moral high ground when it comes to such things. It was just one moment in a Test where Australia were the better team.

Bring on Leeds. England are not out of it yet. It's clearly a mammoth task, and we'll need a fair amount of luck from now on (no bad weather to cause a draw etc.), but if we can win at Headingley and get a bit of momentum going, who knows what can happen.

[GeordieSaint]

2 hours ago, Futtocks said:

Brave effort from the tail, but the damage was already done.

That's two tests gone that we could have won.

Could and should have won both. We didn’t get enough runs in the first test due to declaring too early (and shambolic batting at times) and shambolic batting in this test when we should have at least matched the Aussies first innings score. 

[DavidM]

Ultimately things like this are a distraction from the main point that it should be 1-1 could easily have been 2-0 , and it isn’t because we’ve let Bazball get out of hand when a little discretion and reading the game was needed , and we’ve let them back in when they when we had them down . When on top you can see they’re vulnerable and not that great , but we’ve let them off the hook 

Edited July 2, 2023 by DavidM

[phiggins]

Mark Butcher summed up the Starc catch and Bairstow dismissal quite nicely “don’t put the ball on the ground when taking a catch and don’t wonder out of the crease until you know the ball is dead”

Onto Leeds, question marks over Pope’s fitness, and who will be in the bowling attack? Surely Anderson will make way, and what sort of shape will Broad and Robinson be in? And who is there to come in? Woakes and Potts don’t inspire confidence 

[StandOffHalf]

I think that was a very poor thing to appeal for. Totally against the spirit of the game.

Just on a point of laws, how can it be a stumping when the wicket-keeper throws the ball back (rather than holding the ball) to a batsman who has re-marked his crease and walked to his partner?

I think the fact that the umpires were returning hats, etc. and walking away at the over's conclusion should have meant that the on-field call was not out.

[gingerjon]

Oh look, another ...

 

[GeordieSaint]

15 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Oh look, another ...

 

That’s a very different situation GJ. 

[gingerjon]

15 minutes ago, GeordieSaint said:

That’s a very different situation GJ. 

Because it misses?

Keeper picks up and throws in one action having received the ball.

Aussie just keep his foot down until he sees the ball is dead.

 

[tim2]

8 hours ago, StandOffHalf said:

I think that was a very poor thing to appeal for. Totally against the spirit of the game.

Just on a point of laws, how can it be a stumping when the wicket-keeper throws the ball back (rather than holding the ball) to a batsman who has re-marked his crease and walked to his partner?

I think the fact that the umpires were returning hats, etc. and walking away at the over's conclusion should have meant that the on-field call was not out.

I assume the umpire hadn't called over. He also hadn't handed the hat over until well after Bairstow had left his crease.

Dumb by Jonny, sneaky by Carey but he was out.

The catch / no-catch call was right too.

Edited July 3, 2023 by tim2

[StandOffHalf]

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

Oh look, another ...

 

That's a bit different. Labuschagne was taking up a batting position outside his crease, wasn't he?

Edited July 3, 2023 by StandOffHalf

[GeordieSaint]

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

Because it misses?

Keeper picks up and throws in one action having received the ball.

Aussie just keep his foot down until he sees the ball is dead.

 

No. Labuschagne is actively seeking a competitive advantage by batting outside of his crease to get on top of bounce and swing. Bairstow is not. 

Now I think Bairstow is out by the letter of the law. But it’s not the same as Labuschagne. It’s also not the same as a mankad. As Bairstow is not seeking any competitive advantage, which is the key element in the debate. 

I think it’s pretty rubbish form from Cummins and Carey. Obviously a planned action, and a pretty poor one. There’s now ill-feeling in the Series. Whilst I don’t agree with the actions of some of the members, it’s not surprising. 

[phiggins]

8 hours ago, StandOffHalf said:

I think that was a very poor thing to appeal for. Totally against the spirit of the game.

Just on a point of laws, how can it be a stumping when the wicket-keeper throws the ball back (rather than holding the ball) to a batsman who has re-marked his crease and walked to his partner?

I think the fact that the umpires were returning hats, etc. and walking away at the over's conclusion should have meant that the on-field call was not out.

Poor thing to appeal for, but the most criticism should be reserved for Bairstow. By the time he wandered out of his crease, the umpire at the non-striker's end had barely put his hand in his pocket to reach for the bowler's cap. Stokes knew that over hadn't been called, because he stayed in his crease. Bairstow didn't even turn to look at where the ball was before going walkabout.