Cricket - Matches & General Discussion Thread

[gingerjon]

4 minutes ago, GeordieSaint said:

Obviously a planned action, and a pretty poor one. 

Labuschagne may have been batting out of his crease but he had the presence of mind to ensure he couldn't be run out when the wicket keeper through the ball back in.

If, rather than Carey throwing it back, he had dropped it and lost sight, do you think Bairstow would have declined the run because he had decided a moment before that the ball was dead?

[gingerjon]

And another

 

[phiggins]

48 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

And another

 

Am not sure the whatabouttery is particularly helpful. That Butcher / Nixon example would be 5 penalty runs now. The attempted stumping of Labuschagne was a genuine stumping attempt of somebody that was batting out of his crease.

Carey just knew that Bairstow was going to be walking down the pitch at the end of the over and took a punt. Given Cummings has previously stated that he is against a Mankad run out, which is stopping batters gaining an advantage, if he was consistent then he would withdraw the appeal.

I don't think anybody comes out of this in a particularly good light.

[gingerjon]

3 minutes ago, phiggins said:

Am not sure the whatabouttery is particularly helpful. That Butcher / Nixon example would be 5 penalty runs now. The attempted stumping of Labuschagne was a genuine stumping attempt of somebody that was batting out of his crease.

Carey just knew that Bairstow was going to be walking down the pitch at the end of the over and took a punt. Given Cummings has previously stated that he is against a Mankad run out, which is stopping batters gaining an advantage, if he was consistent then he would withdraw the appeal.

I don't think anybody comes out of this in a particularly good light.

Key thing though: if roles were reversed then no MCC members would be calling Ollie Pope a cheat as the teams went in at the interval.

At no point in the laws does it say, “But don’t be a meanie”.

[phiggins]

6 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Key thing though: if roles were reversed then no MCC members would be calling Ollie Pope a cheat as the teams went in at the interval.

At no point in the laws does it say, “But don’t be a meanie”.

The behaviour of the MCC members was disgraceful. While I think it was a snide move by Australia, absolutely no justification for that behaviour. 

It's a cheap shot, but my main criticism is still reserved for Bairstow for being so stupid.

In fact, my main criticism is actually for whoever made the ridiculous decision to give him the gloves again, but that's another matter.

[Copa]

In rugby league you always play to the whistle, he didn’t “play to the whistle” in a cricket match and was sent back to the pavilion for his troubles.

[phiggins]

26 minutes ago, Copa said:

In rugby league you always play to the whistle, he didn’t “play to the whistle” in a cricket match and was sent back to the pavilion for his troubles.

Yes, a lot of these controversies are avoided if players understand the rules/laws of the game. Bairstow seemed to think scratching his foot in the crease created a dead ball, as if he's playing an u8's match

[Sports Prophet]

22 hours 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. 

Common sense application of the laws would have seen Starc’s catch given as out. They weren’t and it wasn’t.

[phiggins]

1 minute ago, Sports Prophet said:

Common sense application of the laws would have seen Starc’s catch given as out. They weren’t and it wasn’t.

I can't see any interpretation of the law that see's Starc's catch given out. He catches it, then stops himself from sliding by sliding the ball along the ground. Another brainfart, just like Bairstow's.

[Sports Prophet]

4 minutes ago, phiggins said:

I can't see any interpretation of the law that see's Starc's catch given out. He catches it, then stops himself from sliding by sliding the ball along the ground. Another brainfart, just like Bairstow's.

I agree, by letter of the law, it’s not a catch.

Did he have control of the ball and did the ball touching the ground have any impact on the ball staying in the hands? No.

Meanwhile, many have found numerous examples of Baz acting far more illegitimately by twice in his career running out batsmen who were walking up the crease to celebrate their batting partner hitting a milestone run. In the first case it was to win a match by over an innings. Then he has the audacity to call out the Aussies for their wicket.

No national cricket team has the right to take the moral high ground. As for Australia and England, both often play close to the line and each have crossed that line in the past as well. In this match, England came up short and an error from one of their players was instrumental in that result.

 

[phiggins]

2 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

 

Did he have control of the ball and did the ball touching the ground have any impact on the ball staying in the hands? No.

 

 

The ball touching the ground meant that he grounded it. Simple as that. What if he was knee sliding towards the boundary, and stopped himself by planting the ball in the ground?

[DavidM]

22 hours ago, phiggins said:

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 

Question marks over Pope full stop . To me against this level of opponent he looks out of his depth and frantic , certainly to bat at 3 . I think Woakes and Wood should come in for Jimmy and Robinson who are both looking popgun , but I think they’ll pick Wood and go back to Moeen whose finger will miraculously have recovered and won’t fall apart again when he bowls , and we won’t have to go through 5 days of him staring at it 

[phiggins]

20 minutes ago, DavidM said:

Question marks over Pope full stop . To me against this level of opponent he looks out of his depth and frantic , certainly to bat at 3 . I think Woakes and Wood should come in for Jimmy and Robinson who are both looking popgun , but I think they’ll pick Wood and go back to Moeen whose finger will miraculously have recovered and won’t fall apart again when he bowls , and we won’t have to go through 5 days of him staring at it 

I’d go 4 seamers as well. Just can’t see Ali being effective with bat or ball. Thought Pope had done ok at 3, much better than anyone tried there since Trott. But if he’s injured and Stokes isn’t fit to bowl, I’d be putting Stokes at 3. 

Would’ve brought Foakes in, but the selection has gone back to an old mates’ club again sadly. 

[THE RED ROOSTER]

Just make a couple of historical points here:

It's not the first time the "bacon and egg" members have caused trouble at England v Australia matches - back in 1980, The Centenary Test was held at Lords (it should have been at the Oval but the elite pulled rank). The game itself was ruined by rain delays  and despite being John Arlott's last commentary stint IIRC. It was also not Brian Johnson's finest hour either as if memory serves me during the rain break on a Saturday with the rain having stopped and crowd frustrated, BJ spke up in the commentary box,then located at the top of the pavillion, that a cry of "why are we waiting" was coming from the dressing rooms. This riled the MCC membership to the extent that umpire David Constant was grabbed by his tie.

My mind wanders back to my childhood and Richie Benaud presenting the 30 minute highlights of the 1977 Melbourne Centenary Test in black and white in my household with Derek Randall's 174. Randall was actually given out for 161, but the late Rod Marsh recalled Randall as he knew the catch had not been made. in those days the attitude was you played hard but you played fair.

It's true to say what happened to Bairstow is within the rules, but is it the way you want to play the game ?

Unfortuantely these tyoe of incidents are on the rise, greedy adminstrators and players take advantage of market forces to line their pockets at the expense of the wider game. One of the saddest comments I heard last night was Kumar Sangakkara at Tauntopn, coming out with the line that the Vitality Blast was more important than the county championship or the 50 over comp as you could get to play in a number of (franchise) leagues if you performed well in the blast.

One of the things I like about Rugby League as a sport is its the only major UK sport not to be corrupted by money and market forces. I agree with Andy Zaltzman that cricket is a game not a business and should be open for everybody not just those who can afford pay TV, equipment costs or inflated digital ticket prices. The game should be for the many not the few.

Back on the game itself, I am actually more chipper about England's chances at Headingley that I was Saturday evening. They are fired up - You could almost say Stoked for the Ashes...

 

 

[gingerjon]

Just now, THE RED ROOSTER said:

 

One of the things I like about Rugby League as a sport is its the only major UK sport not to be corrupted by money and market forces.

 

This is always an embarrassing point of view.

Rugby league only exists because of the corrupting influence of money.

[MattSantos]

2 hours ago, THE RED ROOSTER said:

 

One of the things I like about Rugby League as a sport is its the only major UK sport not to be corrupted by money and market forces. I agree with Andy Zaltzman that cricket is a game not a business and should be open for everybody not just those who can afford pay TV, equipment costs or inflated digital ticket prices. The game should be for the many not the few.

Back on the game itself, I am actually more chipper about England's chances at Headingley that I was Saturday evening. They are fired up - You could almost say Stoked for the Ashes...

 

 

The goal is to be available as a sport at the elite level and at a participation level. The recent review is hopefully a step in the right direction for the latter. I fear for the elite given the power of the big 3 and India in particular vis a vis franchise cricket.

2 hours ago, gingerjon said:

This is always an embarrassing point of view.

Rugby league only exists because of the corrupting influence of money.

Again, at an elite level only.

[Futtocks]

Hyperbolic language, but still a catch worth savouring.

 

Edited July 4, 2023 by Futtocks

[Sports Prophet]

10 hours ago, phiggins said:

The ball touching the ground meant that he grounded it. Simple as that. What if he was knee sliding towards the boundary, and stopped himself by planting the ball in the ground?

The batsman walked out of his crease before both teams deemed the ball to be dead. Simple as that. The wicketkeeper made an immediate attempt on the stumps for a player consistently caught outside his crease.

[bazza_merged]

16 hours ago, gingerjon said:

If, rather than Carey throwing it back, he had dropped it and lost sight, do you think Bairstow would have declined the run because he had decided a moment before that the ball was dead?

I am certain that if the throw had missed and been misfielded there is no way that Johnny and Ben would have taken some runs because it wouldn't be in the spirit of the game

[gingerjon]

8 hours ago, MattSantos said:

Again, at an elite level only.

There would be no amateur rugby league without the corrupting influence of money because there would be no sport of rugby league without the corrupting influence of money. It's literally why the sport was created.

Mind you, cricket was only codified so the gentry could have a proper framework for their bets.

[phiggins]

5 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:

The batsman walked out of his crease before both teams deemed the ball to be dead. Simple as that. The wicketkeeper made an immediate attempt on the stumps for a player consistently caught outside his crease.

Pretty sure I’ve said already on this thread, brainfarts by both Bairstow and Starc.

[MattSantos]

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

There would be no amateur rugby league without the corrupting influence of money because there would be no sport of rugby league without the corrupting influence of money. It's literally why the sport was created.

Mind you, cricket was only codified so the gentry could have a proper framework for their bets.

At the risk of a huge tangent, why is the influence of money corrupting? It's just one motivation. 

 

Anyhoo. i fancy us in Headingley, though the forecast for Saturday doesn't look promising. #weatherguessers

[gingerjon]

47 minutes ago, MattSantos said:

At the risk of a huge tangent, why is the influence of money corrupting? It's just one motivation.

I was using the wording of this rather silly point of view: "One of the things I like about Rugby League as a sport is its the only major UK sport not to be corrupted by money and market forces."

[Gerrumonside ref]

Scotland have Zimbabwe at 37-4 in the 8th over chasing 235 in the World Cup qualifying tournament.

[phiggins]

Pope out for the series, nobody being called up for the third test. So he will be replaced by either Lawrence or Ali. Imagine Lawrence is the most likely.