The Ashes 2023

[littlebabyjesus]

It's bad for the game if players can't have a certain amount of trust and respect for each other. If there's not that shared understanding that everyone is there to win by actually playing, and not by just fucking people over.

Mind you this is a team and a captain that sends an injured player out to bat so what can you expect.

Agree completely with the first para. Not with the second, though. I'd wager that Lyon insisted on batting. Cummins quite possibly didn't want him to, but if he really wants to, ultimately you respect his decision. I'd be amazed if Lyon had in any way been pressured to bat.

 

[kabbes]

You can talk all you like about what’s allowed and what’s in the laws, but I will continue to think that it stinks. It’s exploiting social convention to gain advantage, like a scammer. The net result is harm to the game, because everybody has to start being more paranoid and thus taking extra time to pointlessly belabour what should be obvious. The fact is that Bairstow wasn’t seeking to gain any advantage in the game. In fact, at that point, he wasn’t even playing the game. The Australian team’s actions (and it was them as a team) were those of a petulant and irritating clever-dick child, not those of a sports professional adult.

 

[QueenOfGoths]

There was interesting discussion during lunch on TMS where an Australian commentator, came to it late so not sure if she was a journalist or ex-player, was saying how she feels the Australian team are needled because England are getting so much coverage in cricket circles and are the team that people are talking about, wanting to watch etc.. due to Bazball, Stokes.

And basically Australia are jealous because they want that spot. They are the number one test team and they want, and feel, that they should be the team that people are talking about.

Thought it was an interesting perspective on the series and the relationship between the
two teams.

 

[pbsmooth]

 

[kabbes]

What’s the issue there? That just looks like a normal stumping attempt, doesn’t it?

 

[pbsmooth]

Well it's the same as the Bairstow one?

McCullum also famously did this to Murali when he was out of his crease to celebrate with Sanga.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Quite a few of the Australians were batting well out of their crease. So not comparable.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Well it's the same as the Bairstow one?

McCullum also famously did this to Murali when he was out of his crease to celebrate with Sanga.

That is comparable and he's on record saying he regrets it.

 

[Spymaster]

Quite a few of the Australians were batting well out of their crease. So not comparable.

He’s not batting out of his crease. ML's back foot is behind the line and it stays there. It’s the same except he didn't step out and Bairstow missed.

 

[kabbes]

It would only be comparable if Bairstow had observed that at the end of each ball, Labuschagne tended to walk forwards before the ball had been officially called dead, and so tried to catch him out on that technicality. Labuschagne didn’t think the ball was dead and walk forwards, he was just batting normally. Bairstow took the chance that Labushagne might be batting outside his crease, because that was the stage the game was at. Labuschagne quickly looked to check he was still in the crease as it hit Bairstow’s hands. It’s worlds apart. I am seriously amazed that it isn’t obvious that it’s worlds apart.

 

[Spymaster]

Bairstow took the chance that Labushagne might be batting outside his crease, because that was the stage the game was at.

Not a chance! Keepers know precisely where a batsman is standing to within a few millimeters. At best, Bairstow has gambled on ML moving out for a run but would have known that Labuschagne would've gone back as soon as it hit his gloves. Agree though that there's a difference in intent if Carey was deliberately looking to take advantage of Bairstow thinking it was the end of the over.

 

[Petcha]

The umpire didnt say 'over'. Therefore it wasn't the end of the over. Bairstow forgot the basics of batting.

BBC News has devoted two hours to discuss it this morning. Crazy shit.

 

[Zapp Brannigan]

Well it's the same as the Bairstow

No, it's very clearly not.

If part of a batter's forward defence/leave routine sometimes takes the weight forward and the back leg up or out of the crease, the wicketkeeper is well within his rights to throw down the stumps and claim a wicket. That is in every sense of the word a stumping.

If a batter has observed the ball into the gloves, made an exaggerated movement with his back leg to signify that he's in his crease, then separately walked to speak to his mate at the other end, then it's a completely different kettle of fish.

Was Bairstow dozy? Of course he was. Is it out according to the laws? Of course it is. But let's not pretend that Bairstow being dozy and the Aussies being cunts is a binary choice and only one can apply.

Cricket matches should be won by batting better, bowling better, fielding better; not by being better at exploiting loopholes in the game.

 

[strung out]

The umpire didnt say 'over'. Therefore it wasn't the end of the over. Bairstow forgot the basics of batting.

BBC News has devoted two hours to discuss it this morning. Crazy shit.

The ball is dead ‘when it is clear to the bowler's end umpire that the fielding side and both batters at the wicket have ceased to regard it as in play'.

Obviously Australia still regarded the ball as in play, but the umpire fucked up by clearly thinking the ball was dead, as you can tell by the fact he was alreadyfacing away and reaching for the bowler's cap. If the umpire thought the ball was dead, then he's the one who fucked up.

 

[sleaterkinney]

You can talk all you like about what’s allowed and what’s in the laws, but I will continue to think that it stinks. It’s exploiting social convention to gain advantage, like a scammer. The net result is harm to the game, because everybody has to start being more paranoid and thus taking extra time to pointlessly belabour what should be obvious. The fact is that Bairstow wasn’t seeking to gain any advantage in the game. In fact, at that point, he wasn’t even playing the game. The Australian team’s actions (and it was them as a team) were those of a petulant and irritating clever-dick child, not those of a sports professional adult.

If he’s on the pitch he’s playing the game. The fault is 100% on him, what was he doing wandering out of his crease so soon?.

 

[kabbes]

what was he doing wandering out of his crease so soon?.

Getting on with it? You know, like we want cricketers to do?

 

[Petcha]

Well anyway. I feel a bit sorry for Alex Carey. The rest of his series is going to be hell, from the crowds and the players. Remember Bairstow will be spending quite a lot of time standing a couple of feet behind him when whoever they get to replace Lyon is bowling.

 

[kabbes]

So I guess that now all test cricket is going to get even slower as all batsmen are going to be required to triple check the ball is dead before they do anything. What a result. Thanks, Australia! You helped!

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The umpire didnt say 'over'. Therefore it wasn't the end of the over. Bairstow forgot the basics of batting.

BBC News has devoted two hours to discuss it this morning. Crazy shit.

Except that the ball goes dead in between balls within overs as well as at the end of overs and the ump doesn't say 'dead ball' every time. It's just understood.

I've just had a look at the McCullum incident and it is very directly comparable. Murali thinks ball is dead and has that impression confirmed by seeing the umpire moving into place for the next ball. He also doesn't check where the ball is before leaving his ground. He's also a bit dozy.

That incident caused a lot of bad feeling between the teams, and was part of the reason McCullum himself later made a concerted effort to change the NZ team culture. They weren't always thought of as the nice guys of test cricket. At the time of the Murali run out, they were considered petulant.

 

[Wilf]

If he’s on the pitch he’s playing the game. The fault is 100% on him, what was he doing wandering out of his crease so soon?.

There is a distinction between the over and the period between overs you know.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

There is a distinction between the over and the period between overs you know.

There's a distinction between a ball and the period in between balls. The ball is 'dead' most of the time during a day's play.

I think there is both a strong case for saying that the umpire decided dead ball too early and that because the umpire had decided dead ball, it was therefore not out due to that umpire error.

(And this isn't a partisan thing for me. I would be arguing the same if England had done it. If anything I hate this kind of gamesmanship even more when it comes from the team I support.)

 

[Petcha]

Except that the ball goes dead in between balls within overs as well as at the end of overs and the ump doesn't say 'dead ball' every time. It's just understood.

I've just had a look at the McCullum incident and it is very directly comparable. Murali thinks ball is dead and has that impression confirmed by seeing the umpire moving into place for the next ball. He also doesn't check where the ball is before leaving his ground. He's also a bit dozy.

That incident caused a lot of bad feeling between the teams, and was part of the reason McCullum himself later made a concerted effort to change the NZ team culture. They weren't always thought of as the nice guys of test cricket. At the time of the Murali run out, they were considered petulant.

I think McCullum's was worse tbh

 

[Spymaster]

So I guess that now all test cricket is going to get even slower as all batsmen are going to be required to triple check the ball is dead before they do anything.

They should be doing that anyway.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

They should be doing that anyway.

Where I have sympathy for Carey is that the ball very clearly wasn't dead (or shouldn't have been) - he caught and threw in one motion. But the umpire thought it was dead. So when is the ball dead? Who decides? By the laws, it's the bowler's end umpire, no?

Where I have less sympathy is if he had tried to do exactly this when throwing the ball - hoping Bairstow wouldn't notice and would wander out of his ground as it was the end of the over. And I think he probably did do that. That's why he threw it so slowly. That's a cunt's trick. And there are already laws in place against deception. A fielder is not allowed to pretend to throw the ball if they do not have the ball in their hand. Here, was everyone else acting like it was dead ball? What were the other Aussie fielders doing - were they staying in position to see how the end of this particular play would pan out?

 

[Spymaster]

Where I have sympathy for Carey is that the ball very clearly wasn't dead (or shouldn't have been) - he caught and threw in one motion. But the umpire thought it was dead. So when is the ball dead? Who decides? By the laws, it's the bowler's end umpire, no?

Where I have less sympathy is if he had tried to do exactly this when throwing the ball - hoping Bairstow wouldn't notice and would wander out of his ground as it was the end of the over. And I think he probably did do that. That's why he threw it so slowly. That's a cunt's trick.

Agree with this except the second bit. I don't think he deliberately threw it slowly. Keepers do that in one movement and to do it slowly enough to allow JB to walk out whilst the ball was on the way back would require incredible timing, and fortuity that he actually would walk out. That would actually be seriously skilfull.

I know you disagree but I don't see too much difference (vis-a-vis sportsmanship) between this and the Mankad (and I do agree that Mankadding should be a recognised dismissal). A bowler taking out a non-striker who's trying to nick ground versus a keeper doing a striker who's been dozy. Not a lot in it, imo.

 

[pbsmooth]

I can't help thinking for all the chat to the media, the players on both sides would all have done similar things over the years and gone on to defend their actions.

Broad claiming it's the worst thing he's ever seen is laughable bordering on insulting - this is the guy who didn't walk when he was caught at slip (in the Ashes) and he said he knew he'd hit it! Do me a favour.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Agree with this except the second bit. I don't think he deliberately threw it slowly. Keepers do that in one movement and to do it slowly enough to allow JB to walk out whilst the ball was on the way back would require incredible timing, and fortuity that he actually would walk out. That would actually be seriously skilfull.

I know you disagree but I don't see too much difference (vis-a-vis sportsmanship) between this and the Mankad (and I do agree that Mankadding should be a recognised dismissal). A bowler taking out a non-striker who's trying to nick ground versus a keeper doing a striker who's been dozy. Not a lot in it, imo.

I think there's a clear difference. The mankad is effected during play when the batter is attempting to gain an advantage. As in the murali example, this was effected to take advantage of the fact that the batter thought the ball was dead and had effectively stopped playing.

Bairstow's mistake was not to look behind and check what was happening. Like Murali, he was also deceived by the fact the umpire was acting as if the ball were dead.

And I would really, really like umpire Gaffney to explain to everyone why he called for the third umpire. Both on-field umps come out of this very badly.

 

[Petcha]

He may have called for the third umpire to give him time to consult with his colleague about wtf to do about it all. It's not an everyday thing.

 

[Petcha]

It will be interesting to see what punishment those members in the long room get. One of them was physically pushing one of them (warner i think). If that had been in the pleb stands I imagine it'd be a lifetime ban. As for the mass chanting and booing in there. It was like PMQs but wearing silly costumes. Just grotesque.

 

[DownwardDog]

Where I have sympathy for Carey is that the ball very clearly wasn't dead (or shouldn't have been) - he caught and threw in one motion. But the umpire thought it was dead. So when is the ball dead? Who decides? By the laws, it's the bowler's end umpire, no?

Carey played Aussie rules in South Australia for years. He's heard more abuse than you can imagine.