English cricket thread

[Care_de_Bobo]

The whole 'rules are rules' nonsense is also quite hilarious when you consider how outraged the Aussies were less than 24 hours before when Starc messed up a regulation catch by grounding the ball and sliding for a couple of metres with it. Did they care about the rules being applied correctly in that instance?

Also people calling Stoke a hypocrite saying he would have done the same thing don't know what they're talking about. He clearly cares about the game and creating a spectacle, not just winning. That was pretty evident after he was all smiles at the end of the previous test defeat and he's always been willing to give the opposition credit after a hard but fair defeat. It's unfortunately, seen as a sign of weakness these days to be a gracious loser or not to to use underhand tactics if you have the chance.

 

[Ayush_reddevil]

Don’t see any end to this debate. It’s the never ending debate of whether you think laws of cricket are everything or if you think that there’s more to cricket than just the written laws. It’s fine if you don’t believe in spirit of cricket but it’s silly to believe that cricket for the large part has been slightly different to sports like football with how it’s played & managed.

 

[jungledrums]

Incorrect, it was more than a second. But I appreciate the intensity of your post. Take care.

I’d urge a rewatch, if your stubbornness permits. I imagine you’ve been decidedly less vocal about Bairstow’s attempt to do exactly the same thing to Labuschagne in this very test? Ta.

 

[Ayush_reddevil]

The tedious part will be people constantly putting up the Bairstow clip despite being explained multiple times in the thread why it’s not the same.

 

[Dan_F]

The tedious part will be people constantly putting up the Bairstow clip despite being explained multiple times in the thread why it’s not the same.

Ultimately sportsmen/women will see an opportunity to gain an advantage and take it. What you want in that situation is cooler heads to realise its pathetic and call the batter back. That’s the main issue I have with it.

 

[iKnowNothing]

I’ve had time to think over this and I feel at the end of the day, it’s a legitimate way to get a wicket.

Those arguing the case of spirit of cricket only need to see what Bairstow attempted with Labuschagne. If spirit of cricket needs to be applied as Sir Cook tweeted about, then Bairstow and the English team should also have informed Labu and then if he didn’t heed to their request, then attempted the run out or stumping or whatever.

Arguing that if that hit the stumps, labu would have been recalled is not sticking to the spirit the way they interpret it, is it?

 

[KM]

The whole 'rules are rules' nonsense is also quite hilarious when you consider how outraged the Aussies were less than 24 hours before when Starc messed up a regulation catch by grounding the ball and sliding for a couple of metres with it. Did they care about the rules being applied correctly in that instance?

Also people calling Stoke a hypocrite saying he would have done the same thing don't know what they're talking about. He clearly cares about the game and creating a spectacle, not just winning. That was pretty evident after he was all smiles at the end of the previous test defeat and he's always been willing to give the opposition credit after a hard but fair defeat. It's unfortunately, seen as a sign of weakness these days to be a gracious loser or not to to use underhand tactics if you have the chance.

Two wrongs make a right then?

 

[Skills]

Don’t see any end to this debate. It’s the never ending debate of whether you think laws of cricket are everything or if you think that there’s more to cricket than just the written laws. It’s fine if you don’t believe in spirit of cricket but it’s silly to believe that cricket for the large part has been slightly different to sports like football with how it’s played & managed.

Yup. The risk, is the games going to end up like baseball if stuff like this continues.

 

[iKnowNothing]

And someone mentioned something to the effect that even the long room got riled up.

Is the long room supposed to be a place where angels hang out? They’re just as human as you and I and the thousands of others at the stadium (albeit with lots more money). Doesn't make them angels though.

 

[TheGame]

Looking to the next match, if Pope is injured Lawrence will come in at 3. I can see Ali and Wood being brought in with Tongue and one other missing out.

 

[Dan_F]

Looking to the next match, if Pope is injured Lawrence will come in at 3. I can see Ali and Wood being brought in with Tongue and one other missing out.

Anderson will be rested you’d imagine. Shame because Headingley is probably one of his best grounds, but he can’t play three in a row.

I can’t decide whether we’re better off bringing in another specialist batsman, or moving Stokes up and hoping Foakes/Ali can cover runs. I guess it’ll depend on the pitch and forecast.

 

[Samid]

Is cricket the only sport where few think rules shouldn't be applied? Batsman leaving the crease before the ball is dead is asking for trouble, same with non-striker leaving the crease before the ball is bowled.

No other sport does this ‘spirit of the game’ bollocks like cricket does it. Tbf I think it’s mostly just old farts who refuse to accept that the game moves on and evolves.

 

[Agent Red]

And someone mentioned something to the effect that even the long room got riled up.

Is the long room supposed to be a place where angels hang out? They’re just as human as you and I and the thousands of others at the stadium (albeit with lots more money). Doesn't make them angels though.

No one has said they are angels?

The members area is famous for not actively reacting in general. They hold a certain standard of behaviour normally and this is the first time I’ve seen that broken, so whether you can understand that or not it is remarkable and because there is such strong feeling about the “spirit of cricket” debate. It isn’t unusual for other parts of the ground to react, you’d expect that, especially at grounds other than Lords.

 

[The Corinthian]

And someone mentioned something to the effect that even the long room got riled up.

Is the long room supposed to be a place where angels hang out? They’re just as human as you and I and the thousands of others at the stadium (albeit with lots more money). Doesn't make them angels though.

I think the point is that there's a level of decorum / behaviour expected from members, hence the amount they pay to be a member, the use of their ties, other attire etc etc.

The funniest thing is the (alleged) names of the 3 members suspended - the most toff sounding names imaginable:

 

[TheGame]

Anderson will be rested you’d imagine. Shame because Headingley is probably one of his best grounds, but he can’t play three in a row.

I can’t decide whether we’re better off bringing in another specialist batsman, or moving Stokes up and hoping Foakes/Ali can cover runs. I guess it’ll depend on the pitch and forecast.

Foakes isn't in the squad. I don't think you can trust Ali as a batsmen so we need to continue the same structure. You can see Broad possibly being rested if the conditions suit Anderson.

 

[Samid]

The whole 'rules are rules' nonsense is also quite hilarious when you consider how outraged the Aussies were less than 24 hours before when Starc messed up a regulation catch by grounding the ball and sliding for a couple of metres with it. Did they care about the rules being applied correctly in that instance?

Also people calling Stoke a hypocrite saying he would have done the same thing don't know what they're talking about. He clearly cares about the game and creating a spectacle, not just winning. That was pretty evident after he was all smiles at the end of the previous test defeat and he's always been willing to give the opposition credit after a hard but fair defeat. It's unfortunately, seen as a sign of weakness these days to be a gracious loser or not to to use underhand tactics if you have the chance.

This the same guy who literally won a World Cup with 4 overthrows that came off his bat? He could’ve told the umpires to chalk off those 4 runs if he cared that much about fair play.

 

[TheGame]

I think the point is that there's a level of decorum / behaviour expected from members, hence the amount they pay to be a member, the use of their ties, other attire etc etc.

The funniest thing is the (alleged) names of the 3 members suspended - the most toff sounding names imaginable:

I think you'll find most England fans couldn't give a toss if 3 Tory toffs are suspended.

 

[The Corinthian]

I think you'll find most England fans couldn't give a toss if 3 Tory toffs are suspended.

Ok? I'm not saying England fans should/shouldn't give a toss.

 

[The Corinthian]

This the same guy who literally won a World Cup with 4 overthrows that came off his bat? He could’ve told the umpires to chalk off those 4 runs if he cared that much about fair play.

Completely different situations. One was against the spirit of the game, but the other was against the spirit of the match.

 

[Agent Red]

I’ll be really surprised if we rest Broad. I don’t think he’s shown any sign of needing it and he’s still our best bowler and a useful personality in the team. Anderson and Robinson out for me, but I wouldn’t be that surprised if they rest Tongue over Robinson. The latter might pick up his game in the Headingley atmosphere as well.

 

[Ayush_reddevil]

Sky’s coverage yesterday was so embarrassing. These guys they have now are so timid and completely obsessed with showing how neutral they are. Maybe read the room a bit ( the stadium in this case)

 

[ChrisNelson]

My take on this.

The rules are the rules of course.

It feels underhanded and a cheap way to earn a wicket because it is totally different to a Mankad.

With a Mankad the batter is trying to gain an unfair advantage by creeping down the wicket.

With Bairstow he wasn't trying to gain any advantage, he had simply seen the ball go past him, thought right that's a dot ball, end of over and I can go and see my partner in the middle.

For Carey to do what he did just because he thought Bairstow was in too much of a hurry just doesn't sit right.

Having said that, I would say that winding the clock back a few years to Broad and his edge to slip for which he didn't walk doesn't exactly cover someone in glory either.

So for him to go off the way he did with all the sarcastic comments and gestures is a bit rich - if he's saying it's a game of honour then he'll do well to remember his edge.

He was quite happy for that to be umpires call (not out) but when the umpire upholds the rules against his team mate a few years later he's outraged.

Doesn't surprise me that they upheld the appeal but I'm pretty sure the Starc catch/no-catch from the previous day had an impact on things.

 

[Agent Red]

This the same guy who literally won a World Cup with 4 overthrows that came off his bat? He could’ve told the umpires to chalk off those 4 runs if he cared that much about fair play.

I don’t think you can ask for a boundary to be chalked off? He visibly held up his hands and apologised as soon as it happened, and has made statements to the same effect since.

 

[Dan_F]

Foakes isn't in the squad. I don't think you can trust Ali as a batsmen so we need to continue the same structure. You can see Broad possibly being rested if the conditions suit Anderson.

Ah right. At least that settles that discussion for the series then. I have a feeling they might go without a spinner again anyway, obviously depending on the pitch.

I think Broad has to play after what happened at Lords. He’ll be fired up and might produce one of those spells.

 

[rimaldo]

I think the point is that there's a level of decorum / behaviour expected from members, hence the amount they pay to be a member, the use of their ties, other attire etc etc.

The funniest thing is the (alleged) names of the 3 members suspended - the most toff sounding names imaginable:

oh so let’s besmirch the names of three outstanding gentlemen in favour of a bunch of neanderthal savages from the other side of the world. these three fine gentlemen, who have never worked a day in their lives, whose only concern that morning was if their butler had pressed the correct slacks and chosen the correct tie and blazer to be worn, were in a moment of devious, underhanded unsportsmanship, thrown into the bear pit, to be ripped apart by commoners with pitchforks.

i know when i’m sleeping at night, my family is far more likely to get murdered during a botched burglary attempt by three blocks called dave, pat and josh, than i am by a bartholomew, humphrey and quintien. the only harm they wish to do to my family is to keep them in the class they were born in and ensure any hopes and aspirations of wanting more are quashed at source.

 

[TheGame]

I’ll be really surprised if we rest Broad. I don’t think he’s shown any sign of needing it and he’s still our best bowler and a useful personality in the team. Anderson and Robinson out for me, but I wouldn’t be that surprised if they rest Tongue over Robinson. The latter might pick up his game in the Headingley atmosphere as well.

I can see Robinson playing and Wood for Tongue will be a direct swap. So the other point is playing a spinner or not.

 

[Agent Red]

My take on this.

The rules are the rules of course.

It feels underhanded and a cheap way to earn a wicket because it is totally different to a Mankad.

With a Mankad the batter is trying to gain an unfair advantage by creeping down the wicket.

With Bairstow he wasn't trying to gain any advantage, he had simply seen the ball go past him, thought right that's a dot ball, end of over and I can go and see my partner in the middle.

For Carey to do what he did just because he thought Bairstow was in too much of a hurry just doesn't sit right.

Having said that, I would say that winding the clock back a few years to Broad and his edge to slip for which he didn't walk doesn't exactly cover someone in glory either.

So for him to go off the way he did with all the sarcastic comments and gestures is a bit rich - if he's saying it's a game of honour then he'll do well to remember his edge.

He was quite happy for that to be umpires call (not out) but when the umpire upholds the rules against his team mate a few years later he's outraged.

Doesn't surprise me that they upheld the appeal but I'm pretty sure the Starc catch/no-catch from the previous day had an impact on things.

Yep fair summary IMO. The Australians obviously felt the catch issue vindicated them judging by their post match comments, but I think it’s totally different given that was a technical decision and also made by the umpires, rather than anything England did directly.

 

[TheGame]

Ah right. At least that settles that discussion for the series then. I have a feeling they might go without a spinner again anyway, obviously depending on the pitch.

I think Broad has to play after what happened at Lords. He’ll be fired up and might produce one of those spells.

Yeah if it's seamer friendly (more than Lords was) then you can play 4 seamers but let's hope they read the pitch a bit better and only do that if its a green top.

 

[rimaldo]

My take on this.

The rules are the rules of course.

It feels underhanded and a cheap way to earn a wicket because it is totally different to a Mankad.

With a Mankad the batter is trying to gain an unfair advantage by creeping down the wicket.

With Bairstow he wasn't trying to gain any advantage, he had simply seen the ball go past him, thought right that's a dot ball, end of over and I can go and see my partner in the middle.

For Carey to do what he did just because he thought Bairstow was in too much of a hurry just doesn't sit right.

Having said that, I would say that winding the clock back a few years to Broad and his edge to slip for which he didn't walk doesn't exactly cover someone in glory either.

So for him to go off the way he did with all the sarcastic comments and gestures is a bit rich - if he's saying it's a game of honour then he'll do well to remember his edge.

He was quite happy for that to be umpires call (not out) but when the umpire upholds the rules against his team mate a few years later he's outraged.

Doesn't surprise me that they upheld the appeal but I'm pretty sure the Starc catch/no-catch from the previous day had an impact on things.

the thing is the aussies completely forgave broad the moment he did it and have been nothing more than gracious to him since.

 

[rimaldo]

Yep fair summary IMO. The Australians obviously felt the catch issue vindicated them judging by their post match comments, but I think it’s totally different given that was a technical decision and also made by the umpires, rather than anything England did directly.

the umpires didn’t let them cheat the rules of the game on day 4, so they had to circumnavigate them on day 5.

 

[TheGame]

My take on this.

The rules are the rules of course.

It feels underhanded and a cheap way to earn a wicket because it is totally different to a Mankad.

With a Mankad the batter is trying to gain an unfair advantage by creeping down the wicket.

With Bairstow he wasn't trying to gain any advantage, he had simply seen the ball go past him, thought right that's a dot ball, end of over and I can go and see my partner in the middle.

For Carey to do what he did just because he thought Bairstow was in too much of a hurry just doesn't sit right.

Having said that, I would say that winding the clock back a few years to Broad and his edge to slip for which he didn't walk doesn't exactly cover someone in glory either.

So for him to go off the way he did with all the sarcastic comments and gestures is a bit rich - if he's saying it's a game of honour then he'll do well to remember his edge.

He was quite happy for that to be umpires call (not out) but when the umpire upholds the rules against his team mate a few years later he's outraged.

Doesn't surprise me that they upheld the appeal but I'm pretty sure the Starc catch/no-catch from the previous day had an impact on things.

No one, not even Broad is disputing the Umpires decision. Literally he has not said that. It's the Australian's not acting within the spirit which is what they are challenging.

 

[Samid]

I don’t think you can ask for a boundary to be chalked off? He visibly held up his hands and apologised as soon as it happened, and has made statements to the same effect since.

He could’ve asked the umpires and if they said no he could’ve taken 5 penalty runs somehow and told NZ to bowl a wide to balance it out.

That’s not my point though. Those overthrows were within the rules. Same as the stumping yesterday. Just deal with it instead of taking the moral high ground of “if it was us we would’ve done things differently”.

 

[Dan_F]

He could’ve asked the umpires and if they said no he could’ve taken 5 penalty runs somehow and told NZ to bowl a wide to balance it out.

That’s not my point though. Those overthrows were within the rules. Same as the stumping yesterday. Just deal with it instead of taking the moral high ground of “if it was us we would’ve done things differently”.

One is a deliberate action, one is not. Of all the comparisons made, this is probably the weirdest you’ve tried.

 

[Agent Red]

He could’ve asked the umpires and if they said no he could’ve taken 5 penalty runs somehow and told NZ to bowl a wide to balance it out.

That’s not my point though. Those overthrows were within the rules. Same as the stumping yesterday. Just deal with it instead of taking the moral high ground of “if it was us we would’ve done things differently”.

This is a mad suggestion. It was just awful luck for NZ and everyone understood that. They were incredibly gracious that day.

The point is it’s about intent, that’s why the two situations aren’t at all comparable. The criticism of Broad is the fair comparison, but Stokes doesn’t have that kind of track record.

 

[Alex99]

He could’ve asked the umpires and if they said no he could’ve taken 5 penalty runs somehow and told NZ to bowl a wide to balance it out.

That’s not my point though. Those overthrows were within the rules. Same as the stumping yesterday. Just deal with it instead of taking the moral high ground of “if it was us we would’ve done things differently”.

This is an absolutely mental suggestion.

 

[Samid]

This is an absolutely mental suggestion.

Wasn’t really a suggestion but a counter argument to ‘you can’t rescind a boundary’ claim above.

 

[Samid]

One is a deliberate action, one is not. Of all the comparisons made, this is probably the weirdest you’ve tried.

They’re both within the rules. The laws and rules are objective and don’t care about the subjective opinions of posters on the caf.

 

[Champ]

Interesting to see the fall out from this and the two divides that have manifested.

The thing for me that's not been spoken about was the Umpire, he wasn't even looking at play when the ball was thrown by Carey,

He was unclipping a hat from his waist, which is a pretty big signal to me that the ball is essentially dead.

 

[Alex99]

Wasn’t really a suggestion but a counter argument to ‘you can’t rescind a boundary’ claim above.

You can't rescind a boundary but you can come up with some convaluted way to give away five runs and ask for one back.

Not mental at all.

 

[ChrisNelson]

No one, not even Broad is disputing the Umpires decision. Literally he has not said that. It's the Australian's not acting within the spirit which is what they are challenging.

Yes I know and I never suggested otherwise regarding Broad.

What I'm saying is that yesterday he seemed to be trying to come across with some sort of halo, whipping the crowd up when he's got a history of 'doing whatever it takes to win within the rules'. His edge and non-walk was not particularly honourable but well within the rules, and so was what happened yesterday.

He can't have it both ways.