English cricket thread

Gotta love English fans, they have gone from being experts of the rules of cricket to rules don't matter spirit of game is more important within a day.
 
In the end Australia played the better cricket. No arguments about that.

But that Bairstow wicket, it's poor very poor. Yes it is dopey from Bairstow and of course it's perfectly legal. But it's so sly and that's the problem with it. I'm all for hard fought cricket, but not sly and deceitful.

There is no run attempted, he hasnt left his ground playing a shot. The ball sails over him to carey. Bairstow even had a little look behind to ensure he is in his ground as Carey gathers the ball. Sure technically it's out, but there will be no getting away from the sly and deceitful nature of it and it is most definitely not in the spirit of the game.
 
Annihilate Now! said:
Looking around it does some like a lot of younger people think that it's fine because it's in the rules, so it's clever play.

Kinda sad in a way.
Click to expand...

That’s one angle. Another thing I’ve noted is how England reacts versus the rest of the world, the discussions around Mankad’s are another good example. Spirit of cricket discussions only really seem to come into play when we discuss the game here. The spirit of the game has always struck me as a nebulous and woolly thing and I think there’s an emotional reaction too to England holding the game to this moral purity when we have made some questionable judgements throughout the history of the game.

Ultimately, the game can help itself a great deal by writing better rules, by all means punish bats taking the piss but Bairstow there wasn’t trying to steal an advantage. Yeah it’s in the laws and yeah Bairstow was dozy but it’s a shit way to get a wicket, especially in such a beautifully poised game.
 
DOTA said:
Very mean people defending cheating. To be expected, I guess, but still disappointing.
Click to expand...
The same people whining about spirit of the game were very adamant about not walking not long ago, so which is it? Follow the rules or follow the spirit, you can't claim moral superiority picking and choosing when to apply which.
 
SmallCaine said:
The same people whining about spirit of the game were very adamant about not walking not long ago, so which is it? Follow the rules or follow the spirit, you can't claim moral superiority picking and choosing when to apply which.
Click to expand...
Walking hasn't been the convention at any point in my time watching cricket. I think you just wanna excuse big old cheats.
 
SmallCaine said:
The same people whining about spirit of the game were very adamant about not walking not long ago, so which is it? Follow the rules or follow the spirit, you can't claim moral superiority picking and choosing when to apply which.
Click to expand...

I think not walking is more in the spirt of the game than, for example, concealing sandpaper to rough up a ball mid-match.
 
SmallCaine said:
The same people whining about spirit of the game were very adamant about not walking not long ago, so which is it? Follow the rules or follow the spirit, you can't claim moral superiority picking and choosing when to apply which.
Click to expand...

Walking is largely irrelevant now that DRS is in place.
 
Regardless of what happens now, no true cricket fan will recall this series as anything other than a 4-1 win for England.
 
DOTA said:
Walking hasn't been the convention at any point in my time watching cricket. I think you just wanna excuse big old cheats.
Click to expand...
Not really, you lot just want to pick and choose when spirit applies. If running out an idiot is against the spirit because he is an idiot, same standards should be set for taking advantage of the blind. Can't pick and choose based on when you get the advantage, that would fall under not playing in the spirit of the game.
 
SmallCaine said:
Not really, you lot just want to pick and choose when spirit applies. If running out an idiot is against the spirit because he is an idiot, same standards should be set for taking advantage of the blind. Can't pick and choose based on when you get the advantage, that would fall under not playing in the spirit of the game.
Click to expand...
'My name is SmallCaine and I love cheating'.
 
DOTA said:
Regardless of what happens now, no true cricket fan will recall this series as anything other than a 4-1 win for England.
Click to expand...
Yup, just like lakers won that series vs nuggets, it's 2-0 to England in moral victories.
 
SmallCaine said:
Same goes for runouts and stumping, with replays, but you guys don't seem to like the rules there and want spirit of the game to apply on those.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone was complaining about your standard runouts or stumpings. Not sure if anyone is calling for a ban on those unless you are drawing a stupid equivalency here.
 
SmallCaine said:
Same goes for runouts and stumping, with replays, but you guys don't seem to like the rules there and want spirit of the game to apply on those.
Click to expand...

Where do "you guys" stand on welcoming back players that used sandpaper to rough up the ball mid-match and basically ignoring such horrendous cheating?

Where does that fall on the scale of "it was a totally legal stumping" to "Stuart Broad once refused to walk after the umpire didn't notice he edged it"?
 
Alex99 said:
Where do "you guys" stand on welcoming back players that used sandpaper to rough up the ball mid-match and basically ignoring such horrendous cheating?

Where does that fall on the scale of "it was a totally legal stumping" to "Stuart Broad once refused to walk after the umpire didn't notice he edged it"?
Click to expand...

That’s ok for them as it doesn’t involve England players. Had it done, they would have wanted them banned permanently.
 
DOTA said:
Just a bit of a nightmare if we wanna play this way. We all have to double check for dead ball constantly. Batsmen can never pass the ball to a fielder when it drops at their feet.
Click to expand...

I agree -- it's a dumb runout that shouldn't have stood today.

Bairstow benefited absolutely zilch from walking out of the crease -- that is the most important thing for me

You can argue legality and loopholes all you want, ultimately we all watch sport for a fair competition, get entertained and hopefully the team you're supporting wins. We don't watch it to shout from the rooftops about some stupid clause in a rulebook that justifies random bullshit like this. This wasn't fair.
 
Alex99 said:
Where do "you guys" stand on welcoming back players that used sandpaper to rough up the ball mid-match and basically ignoring such horrendous cheating?

Where does that fall on the scale of "it was a totally legal stumping" to "Stuart Broad once refused to walk after the umpire didn't notice he edged it"?
Click to expand...
My vote, ban them, hate Smith, always scores runs against us. Also no team should really claim high moral ground on ball tampering, every team has done it and been caught doing it.
 
No issues with the dismissal for me. We have to learn from that. If it's a valid dismissal then we just have to get on with it and not make the same mistake. I think we know how Australia play in terms of "spirit" over the years so you have to be on guard for this type of stuff that perhaps other sides wouldn't utilise.

What concerns me is some of the dopey cricket we play, and that naive dismissal could symbolise it. Declaring before setting a strong first innings total. Dropping stuff constantly (do we even practice catching or do they think that Bazball precludes getting your mitts on it?). Stokes going mental every ball even though he had a valid batter in Broad to play with. We'll probably top it off by playing Anderson again next test match.
 
SmallCaine said:
Not really, you lot just want to pick and choose when spirit applies. If running out an idiot is against the spirit because he is an idiot, same standards should be set for taking advantage of the blind. Can't pick and choose based on when you get the advantage, that would fall under not playing in the spirit of the game.
Click to expand...

Sorry but this is nonsense. There's a whole host of reasons why someone wouldn't walk... In the same way I wouldn't necessarily criticise Smith for his catch off Root the other day, he probably had no idea it touched the floor.

It's like comparing apples and oranges, it's totally different things.
 
Annihilate Now! said:
Looking around it does some like a lot of younger people think that it's fine because it's in the rules, so it's clever play.

Kinda sad in a way.
Click to expand...
It is sad. Feel like it's even more expected on a football forum which is a sport that hasn't had any morals for a long time. People think sport is just about winning, but it should be more about showing that you're better than your opponent in a sporting manner.

Australia were already proving they were better players than the English, but they've also proved that when things aren't going their way they resort to underhand tactics like Carey, Smith and Starc have done in this test. It's the kind of dishonesty and gamesmanship you'd actually expect from a modern day footballer.
 
I don't get this "Bairstow is dopey" argument too. Is it really so rare for people to walk out like that having left the ball?

Yes it does seem a bit silly what he's done, but is it that rare?
 
Not a big cricket fan but tune in for the big occasions.

There’s no cheating involved but to celebrate and award a wicket for a non cricketing play stinks.
 
SmallCaine said:
My vote, ban them, hate Smith, always scores runs against us. Also no team should really claim high moral ground on ball tampering, every team has done it and been caught doing it.
Click to expand...

Ah yeah, every team has brought sandpaper on the pitch at some point...
 
I actually think England probably got closer to the Aus score because of the Bairstow incident than they would have had he stuck around.

Still, Aussies deployed a shitty tactic which soured another excellent test match.

Bairstow a bit brain dead. Aussies playing like Aussies. Nothing new.
 
De Grandhomme is wandering down the pitch eyeing up a single whilst the ball is travelling to a fielder and is run out before making his way back to his crease. How much of a braindead simpleton do you need to be to equate that to the Bairstow incident?
 
Annihilate Now! said:
Sorry but this is nonsense. There's a whole host of reasons why someone wouldn't walk... In the same way I wouldn't necessarily criticise Smith for his catch off Root the other day, he probably had no idea it touched the floor.

It's like comparing apples and oranges, it's totally different things.
Click to expand...
It is apples to apples comparison, England wants Australia to play the game in the right spirit. Right spirit for England includes not running out their batsmen because they are too stupid and clueless to wait for the ball to be called dead but at the same time spirit does not for some reason include walking when you know clearly that you have hit the ball and a catch is taken. That to me is hypocrisy, either play in the spirit of the game or follow the letter of the law, you can't pick and choose which to follow when.
 
TheGame said:
He’s talking about the spirit of the game. Bit much to call him a cheat. He should have walked but wasn’t given out by the umpire so there is no requirement to. Not like he hid sandpaper in his pocket or anything.
Click to expand...
Broad's was about as unsporting as you can get. That wasn't a nick. He hit the cover off it. Fair enough, he didn't walk. It was in the rules but we can't pick and choose our battles.
 
SmallCaine said:
Gotta love English fans, they have gone from being experts of the rules of cricket to rules don't matter spirit of game is more important within a day.
Click to expand...
Like clockwork. Not a peep from them I bet when Broad nicked it and decided not to leave his crease a few years ago.
 
zing said:
I don't get this "Bairstow is dopey" argument too. Is it really so rare for people to walk out like that having left the ball?

Yes it does seem a bit silly what he's done, but is it that rare?
Click to expand...

Yeah this is my thoughts as well but haven't seen it mentioned. It seems like something that happens 100 times a game.
 
SmallCaine said:
My vote, ban them, hate Smith, always scores runs against us. Also no team should really claim high moral ground on ball tampering, every team has done it and been caught doing it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, all those cases of people bringing sandpaper onto the field. Heard they had to block the opening of a B&Q too close to Edgbaston, lest it become a massive problem.

And just as "every team" has definitely tampered with the ball in a similar way to the Aussies, Stuart Broad is definitely the only player in history not to walk when caught from an edge.
 
Alex99 said:
Yeah, all those cases of people bringing sandpaper onto the field. Heard they had to block the opening of a B&Q too close to Edgbaston, lest it become a massive problem.

And just as "every team" has definitely tampered with the ball in a similar way to the Aussies, Stuart Broad is definitely the only player in history not to walk when caught from an edge.
Click to expand...
Yeah but the others don't keep whining about the spirit of the game with the same consistency England does.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.