The Ashes 2023

[Wilf]

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.

Again though, the Mankad is to stop batters taking an advantage. This was using a grey area for the bowling team to get an advantage. Grey area in the sense of whether the batter and umpires thought the over was complete v actually calling over.

Anyway, I think it goes back to the umpires and/or the shift in responsibility from them to the 3rd umpire. Honour would have been served - I'll use that word rather than the problematic 'spirit of cricket' - if he'd thrown down the stumps and then the umpires either said 'yeah but in practice the over was complete' or had asked Cummins if he'd wanted to withdraw the appeal. Part of the problem here was the passing of responsibility to the 3rd umpire (or at least the on field umpire not having a conversation with the 3rd umpire). It's the VAR parallel, the referral takes the issue to a place where technicality overrides, cliche alert, doing the right thing

 

[Wilf]

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.

But no 'consulting' took place.

 

[Spymaster]

Bairstow's mistake was not to look behind and check what was happening.

And it's a huge one. If the keeper was standing-up there's no way you'd walk out without a clear indication that the ball was considered dead. That would usually be the keeper chucking it to the slips to circulate it back to the bowler. This is no different. He's just standing further away.

 

[Petcha]

And it's a huge one. If the keeper was standing-up there's no way you'd walk out without a clear indication that the ball was considered dead. That would usually be the keeper chucking it to the slips to circulate it back to the bowler. This is no different. He's just standing further away.

Absolutely. You're right - if Carey had been standing up, I assume, that as a wicketkeeper himself, Bairstow wouldn't have strutted down the pitch a second after leaving the ball.

 

[ska invita]

Is this as exciting as cricket gets?
Anyhow, great to see Australia whooping the opposition and giving them something to moan about on top
#ABE

 

[Spymaster]

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).

I think the bloke in the white blazer who pushed Warner away was an official, trying to calm things down. A couple of seconds before he was blocking the members.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

But no 'consulting' took place.

It was a blatant case of buck-passing. The two on field umps needed to decide for themselves whether or not the ball was dead. If it was, not out. If it wasn't, out. I can see the case for either tbh, but it was a decision for the on field umps. Nothing to do with the third ump. Gaffney made the TV signal instantly, and as soon as he'd done that, it was no longer his responsibility.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the incident, both on field umps were totally rubbish.

 

[Petcha]

Stokes' innings anyway. Truly brilliant. What a shame about his injuries. He's already pretty much become England's greatest ever all rounder but this will surely be his last Ashes. He's just a terrific cricketer and I assume will spend a lot longer in the game in a management position.

If Ollie Pope is his anointed successor though. I literally cannot imagine a bigger contrast. It's going to be a disaster. Stokes is doing this by himself pretty much. Who do they go to next realistically? Back to Root?

 

[Petcha]

It was a blatant case of buck-passing. The two on field umps needed to decide for themselves whether or not the ball was dead. If it was, not out. If it wasn't, out. I can see the case for either tbh, but it was a decision for the on field umps. Nothing to do with the third ump. Gaffney made the TV signal instantly, and as soon as he'd done that, it was no longer his responsibility.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the incident, both on field umps were totally rubbish.

Tbf, I think they're required to check every run out and stumping to cover their arses

 

[tommers]

‘Same old Aussies, always cheating!’ Chants cut deep for a nation still scarred by sandpaper | Megan Maurice

It was shocking to watch a baying crowd hurl abuse at players for effecting a stumping within the laws of the game

www.theguardian.com

"being called cheats was especially difficult for us, with our recent history of cheating "

 

[edcraw]

‘Same old Aussies, always cheating!’ Chants cut deep for a nation still scarred by sandpaper | Megan Maurice

It was shocking to watch a baying crowd hurl abuse at players for effecting a stumping within the laws of the game

www.theguardian.com

"being called cheats was especially difficult for us, with our recent history of cheating "

The “Same old Aussies, always cheating” chants were frankly embarrassing as with all the other football chant crossovers.

 

[sleaterkinney]

"being called cheats was especially difficult for us, with our recent history of cheating "

Yeah, I'm surprised people are talking about the spirit of the game when this is warner, smith, cummins et al.

 

[kabbes]

Crowds aren’t stupid. They’re the people who pay to go and watch the game, and they know what they’re supposed to be paying to see. That doesn’t include clever-dick wankery that spoils a sporting contest. I’m not surprised that they reacted like they did.

 

[Petcha]

Crowds aren’t stupid. They’re the people who pay to go and watch the game, and they know what they’re supposed to be paying to see. That doesn’t include clever-dick wankery that spoils a sporting contest. I’m not surprised that they reacted like they did.

Crowds aren't stupid? You've clearly never been to a match in England where everyone starts knocking them back at 10.30 and by lunch are totally fucked. I mean it's part of the fun n all. Doesn't even happen in Australian games I've been to. I assume by 12.46pm, the members were well on their way.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yeah, I do agree with that. By mid-afternoon, test match crowds are well on their way towards stupid.

 

[Petcha]

Yeah, I do agree with that. By mid-afternoon, test match crowds are well on their way towards stupid.

Yep, and I'm usually keepin up with them. Even as a cricket fan, but half way through the second session not much actual attention is being to the cricket. Just pissing it up with your mates. It's a massive open air pub. But I'd never want that to change.

This will blow over I hope. The series was being played in good spirits.

 

[Wilf]

It was a blatant case of buck-passing. The two on field umps needed to decide for themselves whether or not the ball was dead. If it was, not out. If it wasn't, out. I can see the case for either tbh, but it was a decision for the on field umps. Nothing to do with the third ump. Gaffney made the TV signal instantly, and as soon as he'd done that, it was no longer his responsibility.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the incident, both on field umps were totally rubbish.

Yes, I can't be arsed chasing the original documents down, but here's wiki on run out referrals:

Umpire reviews[edit]​

In many cases, the event occurs in a fraction of a second. At their discretion, on-field umpires may request the Third Umpire reviews the following dismissal decisions:[35]

• Run out. If the on-field umpires are unable to decide if the batsman is out, they may request the third umpire to ascertain whether the batsman had made it home. Also the case where both batsmen have run to the same end and the on-field umpires are uncertain over which batsman made his ground first. An example of this was the Third Test between New Zealand and the West Indies in 2006.[36]

Decision Review System - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Assuming that's right, this clearly shouldn't have been reviewed - they could see he was a mile out of this ground (unless of course the square leg umpire didn't see it was well, though it looked like he did from the clips. And if he didn't see it... along with the bowling end umpire... that sure as shit looked like the over was done). The only thing to decide was whether the over was 'over', 'not over' or, 'well, yes okay, but would you like to withdraw the appeal'? All of which should have been an on field discussion between umpires and/or Cummins.

In all the chatter, I'm surprised the umpires process in all of this hasn't been the focus every bit as much as the Aussies 'gamesmanship'.

 

[Wilf]

The “Same old Aussies, always cheating” chants were frankly embarrassing as with all the other football chant crossovers.

'You only sing where yer 'Bazballing'

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yes, I can't be arsed chasing the original documents down, but here's wiki on run out referrals:

Decision Review System - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Assuming that's right, this clearly shouldn't have been reviewed - they could see he was a mile out of this ground (unless of course the square leg umpire didn't see it was well, though it looked like he did from the clips. And if he didn't see it... along with the bowling end umpire... that sure as shit looked like the over was done). The only thing to decide was whether the over was 'over', 'not over' or, 'well, yes okay, but would you like to withdraw the appeal'? All of which should have been an on field discussion between umpires and/or Cummins.

In all the chatter, I'm surprised the umpires process in all of this hasn't been the focus every bit as much as the Aussies 'gamesmanship'.

yeah neither of those conditions apply. Possibly my favourite comedy moment in a cricket match is when the batters find themselves at the same end and they both try to make their ground first so that their mate is run out and not them. Facepalms all round.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yep, and I'm usually keepin up with them. Even as a cricket fan, but half way through the second session not much actual attention is being to the cricket. Just pissing it up with your mates. It's a massive open air pub. But I'd never want that to change.

This will blow over I hope. The series was being played in good spirits.

I used to. Don't like daytime drinking so much nowadays. If I go to Lord's, I'll take a bottle of wine but not start it until the afternoon. tbh my idea of a perfect day out at the cricket would be somewhere like Mt Maunganui in New Zealand. Maybe four or five thousand people in, lounging around on the grass with loads of room, picnic baskets, village fete feel to the whole thing.

 

[Wilf]

Anyway, away from the stumping ... I thought Stokes post match interview was interesting when he was challenged over the way they'd batted in the first innings. Essentially, he was asked about the bad decision the top order batters had made, going overly aggressive. His answer was everybody knows what the are doing when they go out there, emphasising clarity. I'm no sportsman or sports psychologist, but clarity + having no (well, less) fear about making mistakes is undoubtedly important and a good approach. And, let's be honest the Stokes/McCullum approach has taken England to place where the sum is greater than the parts. Maybe even in this series, in some respects. But what I found interesting was that he gave that as a conversation stopper, pretty much that's it end of story.

I'm not really sure what that adds up to. It's perhaps a useful way of not engaging with critics, saying this is the internal logic of our approach and you can't break into it. It works well and probably adds to the mental strength of the players. Lots of positives. And of course the actual team talks will be more nuanced. But does it also create a situation where it's hard to click into plan B when things fall apart. Because for all the events of yesterday, this match was lost in the first innings - poor bowling by England, but also a poor approach to their batting.

 

[Petcha]

Anyway, away from the stumping ... I thought Stokes post match interview was interesting when he was challenged over the way they'd batted in the first innings. Essentially, he was asked about the bad decision the top order batters had made, going overly aggressive. His answer was everybody knows what the are doing when they go out there, emphasising clarity. I'm no sportsman or sports psychologist, but clarity + having no (well, less) fear about making mistakes is undoubtedly important and a good approach. And, let's be honest the Stokes/McCullum approach has taken England to place where the sum is greater than the parts. Maybe even in this series, in some respects. But what I found interesting was that he gave that as a conversation stopper, pretty much that's it end of story.

I'm not really sure what that adds up to. It's perhaps a useful way of not engaging with critics, saying this is the internal logic of our approach and you can't break into it. It works well and probably adds to the mental strength of the players. Lots of positives. And of course the actual team talks will be more nuanced. But does it also create a situation where it's hard to click into plan B when things fall apart. Because for all the events of yesterday, this match was lost in the first innings - poor bowling by England, but also a poor approach to their batting.

Tbf, he's working with a pretty ordinary group of players compared to what the Aussies have. It's actually impressive they've pushed them this hard. And could have won both matches but for random events. Bairstow at the centre of most of them.

Bring Foakes back!!

 

[tommers]

Anyway, away from the stumping ... I thought Stokes post match interview was interesting when he was challenged over the way they'd batted in the first innings. Essentially, he was asked about the bad decision the top order batters had made, going overly aggressive. His answer was everybody knows what the are doing when they go out there, emphasising clarity. I'm no sportsman or sports psychologist, but clarity + having no (well, less) fear about making mistakes is undoubtedly important and a good approach. And, let's be honest the Stokes/McCullum approach has taken England to place where the sum is greater than the parts. Maybe even in this series, in some respects. But what I found interesting was that he gave that as a conversation stopper, pretty much that's it end of story.

I'm not really sure what that adds up to. It's perhaps a useful way of not engaging with critics, saying this is the internal logic of our approach and you can't break into it. It works well and probably adds to the mental strength of the players. Lots of positives. And of course the actual team talks will be more nuanced. But does it also create a situation where it's hard to click into plan B when things fall apart. Because for all the events of yesterday, this match was lost in the first innings - poor bowling by England, but also a poor approach to their batting.

There can't be a plan B if there is utter certainty that you are doing the right thing. And that (clarity, certainty, belief) seems to be right at the centre of the whole thing.

Before he spoke about execution - if the approach is right (which they are certain it is) and it fails then it's just execution - which can be corrected. Trying to smack the short ball about to stop them using the short ball is a valid approach. It didn't work in that period but that was just cos they messed up, not cos the approach was wrong. If you're trying to be aggressive then that is the only approach you can take. Ducking about until the bowler is knackered might be another team's approach, but it doesn't fit in with the overall aim.

It seems it's very all or nothing.

 

[pbsmooth]

Very cultish.

 

[Petcha]

There can't be a plan B if there is utter certainty that you are doing the right thing. And that (clarity, certainty, belief) seems to be right at the centre of the whole thing.

Before he spoke about execution - if the approach is right (which they are certain it is) and it fails then it's just execution - which can be corrected. Trying to smack the short ball about to stop them using the short ball is a valid approach. It didn't work in that period but that was just cos they messed up, not cos the approach was wrong. If you're trying to be aggressive then that is the only approach you can take. Ducking about until the bowler is knackered might be another team's approach, but it doesn't fit in with the overall aim.

It seems it's very all or nothing.

I live my life by the same approach so maybe that's why it appeals to me.

This would not even begin to approach working under another captain so let's just enjoy it while he's still fit enough to walk out there. Would we honestly prefer Root captaining this mediocre group of players and ageing legends to a lame 4-1 series defeat or the tornado that they've brought in the last year and quite possibly a 5-0? I hope they hold their nerve.

 

[Wilf]

I live my life by the same approach so maybe that's why it appeals to me.

This would not even begin to approach working under another captain so let's just enjoy it while he's still fit enough to walk out there. Would we honestly prefer Root captaining this mediocre group of players and ageing legends to a lame 4-1 series defeat or the tornado that they've brought in the last year and quite possibly a 5-0? I hope they hold their nerve.

Again though, it's the all or nothing that's the problem. No knowing that they would have eventually won, but they would have almost certainly taken a first innings lead if they'd only reined it in a bit (reined it in, adapted it, call it what you want... not going back to some Boycott-esque plodding). We can argue this round and round, but not playing to the conditions of the match is bound to have it's limits - particularly when you play the best team in the world.

 

[Petcha]

Again though, it's the all or nothing that's the problem.

I think we have a fundamental disagreement of 'problem'. I absolutely love what they're doing. Of course I understand your point about the results not coming in this series, but it's been much closer than 2-0 looks like.

I really think Foakes' non-selection has been the difference here. Carey is an excellent keeper and a very good batsman. Bairstow is one of those things. And Carey seems to know the rules of cricket, which always helps.

 

[Wilf]

And Carey seems to know the rules of cricket, which always helps.

... even if the umpires don't.

 

[Petcha]

... even if the umpires don't.

In what way? He was out. And rightly so... The finger was raised. Because he was stumped, from 30 yards or so but still, stumped. Has there ever been a longer range stumping btw?

The umpires didn't know the rules in the WC final or New Zealand would be world champs but that a very arcane law even by cricket's standards.

 

[Wilf]

In what way? He was out. And rightly so... The finger was raised. Because he was stumped, from 30 yards or so but still, stumped. Has there ever been a longer range stumping btw?

The umpires didn't know the rules in the WC final or New Zealand would be world champs but that a very arcane law even by cricket's standards.

As in you can't refer a 'was this the end of the over' issue to the 3rd umpire (this wasn't about whether he was in his ground or not, he clearly wasn't). The only the thing the umpires could do was speak to each other to confirm whether the over was done or not (and perhaps to ask the captain 'do you really want to do this'). All of that might have lead to Out, but it shouldn't have gone upstairs. As littlebabyjesus has said, it was a cop out.