The England Cricket Thread

fez said:
Our tail end is generally awful. Would have been interesting to see how this game would have shaken out without the Bairstow wicket and if Stokes could have run. Made it so easy for the Aussies to kill the run rate when you know the main batsman is't going to take any runs that aren't boundaries.
Click to expand...

Why couldn't Stokes run? Must have missed that.

If he'd targeted a run an over in that latter stage, he'd have left the final three about ~40 to get which was just about doable. Of course it's not his fault, he was left with far much to do on his own, the fact he was the team's only hope doesn't bode very well for the rest of them.
 
Cummins doubled down in the post match interview about the Bairstow incident. Really sad to hear him do this. They crossed a line today when it comes to poor sportsmanship, they know it but just doubled down. Rather a reflection of where society is in general really, no honesty or decency, win at all costs, **** you mentality.

Watch the replay back. The standing umpire wasn't even looking when Carey threw Bairstow's stumps down, he was fiddling with his pocket. Bairstow made a little scrape over the line with his foot before wandering off, as if to acknowledge "I'm in my ground". Everyone apart from Carey essentially was acting as if it was over.

The umpires were so caught on the back foot themselves they didn't even call it right to start with. At the time it was given as run out, yet no run was being attempted. But it went down on the scorecard, correctly (technically), as stumped.

Yes, to the absolute letter of the law it's out. Possibly, because it depends on if the umpire audibly called "over" or not. But are umpire's still audibly and formally calling "over" at the end of each and every single over? I doubt it. There's a lot of assumptions about the flow of the game that take place in a five day match, some leeway usually given over the finer formalities.

This clearly crossed a line. It's just not something players should ever do, be it park or international level cricket, and it's absolutely against the spirit of the game.

A sad day really, because it will inevitably change how the rest of the series is played and the respect the teams hold for each other.
 
Participant said:
Their bowling attack is too good for our batters, even without Lyon.
Click to expand...

Was it though?

If the openers had scored even 20 each Stokes would have been home and dry, they were more than capable of that and indeed have already proven so. I don't think talent is the issue, it's the inability to sometimes play the game slowly. There's nothing wrong with aggression and positive play and Stokes showed it can work but some more slow singles at the start would have made that doable.
 
Cern said:
Cummins doubled down in the post match interview about the Bairstow incident. Really sad to hear him do this. They crossed a line today when it comes to poor sportsmanship, they know it but just doubled down. Rather a reflection of where society is in general really, no honesty or decency, win at all costs, **** you mentality.

Watch the replay back. The standing umpire wasn't even looking when Carey threw Bairstow's stumps down, he was fiddling with his pocket. Bairstow made a little scrape over the line with his foot before wandering off, as if to acknowledge "I'm in my ground". Everyone apart from Carey essentially was acting as if it was over.

The umpires were so caught on the back foot themselves they didn't even call it right to start with. At the time it was given as run out, yet no run was being attempted. But it went down on the scorecard, correctly (technically), as stumped.

Yes, to the absolute letter of the law it's out. Possibly, because it depends on if the umpire audibly called "over" or not. But are umpire's still audibly and formally calling "over" at the end of each and every single over? I doubt it. There's a lot of assumptions about the flow of the game that take place in a five day match, some leeway usually given over the finer formalities.

This clearly crossed a line. It's just not something players should ever do, be it park or international level cricket, and it's absolutely against the spirit of the game.

A sad day really, because it will inevitably change how the rest of the series is played and the respect the teams hold for each other.
Click to expand...

Meh, it was in the rules. If it had been the other way around would we be arguing about this?
 
Dialup said:
Meh, it was in the rules. If it had been the other way around would we be arguing about this?
Click to expand...

I'd like to hope so, yes.

Technically it's in the rules. But then you have to ask, why wasn't the umpire paying attention then? If the umpire has looked away and started fiddling with a cap in their pocket, essentially they feel the ball is dead. Because if it isn't dead, they aren't doing their job.

There's a lot of little technicalities in cricket and ways to get someone out that go against the spirit of the game if not the exact letter of the law. Generally if a side think a player is trying to gain unfair advantage (backing up too far etc) then they'll usually give a verbal warning first along the lines of "keep doing that and we'll whip the bails off". Bairstow wasn't seeking to take any advantage, it was just the usual end of over turnaround.

What goes around comes around and if you start trying to get the opposition out on technicalities the whole flow and spirit of the game is altered. Given the lack of an apology from Australia, you have to wonder if we'll see more of this in future matches. There's more technicalities in cricket that could be exploited than most people realise.
 
Cern said:
I'd like to hope so, yes.

Technically it's in the rules. But then you have to ask, why wasn't the umpire paying attention then? If the umpire has looked away and started fiddling with a cap in their pocket, essentially they feel the ball is dead. Because if it isn't dead, they aren't doing their job.

There's a lot of little technicalities in cricket and ways to get someone out that go against the spirit of the game if not the exact letter of the law. Generally if a side think a player is trying to gain unfair advantage (backing up too far etc) then they'll usually give a verbal warning first along the lines of "keep doing that and we'll whip the bails off". Bairstow wasn't seeking to take any advantage, it was just the usual end of over turnaround.

What goes around comes around and if you start trying to get the opposition out on technicalities the whole flow and spirit of the game is altered. Given the lack of an apology from Australia, you have to wonder if we'll see more of this in future matches. There's more technicalities in cricket that could be exploited than most people realise.
Click to expand...

I see this as exactly the same as stumping a player when you're bowling.

I would never do it when I bowl and I consider it rather bad form - but it's not actually against the rules. We had a similar case at a club game a few weeks back, we all thought it was bad conduct but the rules are the rules. Argue with the people making the rules.
 
Dialup said:
I see this as exactly the same as stumping a player when you're bowling.

I would never do it when I bowl and I consider it rather bad form - but it's not actually against the rules. We had a similar case at a club game a few weeks back, we all thought it was bad conduct but the rules are the rules. Argue with the people making the rules.
Click to expand...

Yep it's exactly like this. Technically you can do it and it's out. But it's just really bad form. And you almost never see it happen in professional cricket and yet in almost every match there is ample opportunity to do so.

Obviously it works both ways and some players seek to gain advantage and take the proverbial by backing up half way down the wicket. But usually what happens is the bowler or captain warns them and if they persist with it, then fair game.

The rules don't need changing, but if sides want to exploit these things then umpires are going to have to be MUCH more formal and deliberate about calling the balls dead.
 
Cern said:
Yep it's exactly like this. Technically you can do it and it's out. But it's just really bad form. And you almost never see it happen in professional cricket and yet in almost every match there is ample opportunity to do so.

Obviously it works both ways and some players seek to gain advantage and take the proverbial by backing up half way down the wicket. But usually what happens is the bowler or captain warns them and if they persist with it, then fair game.

The rules don't need changing, but if sides want to exploit these things then umpires are going to have to be MUCH more formal and deliberate about calling the balls dead.
Click to expand...

I think the reason the Aussies get a bad rep in particular is because they have actually been done for cheating, England as a team to the best of my knowledge have never been found to conspire to cheat. So there is something to be said for England in general "sticking to the rules".

I think the Aussies were wrong to do it - but they didn't actually do anything wrong. And I enjoyed Broad's reaction to it which put Starc and Cummins on the ropes and allowed Stokes to smash three balls in a row for 6
 
Dialup said:
I think the reason the Aussies get a bad rep in particular is because they have actually been done for cheating, England as a team to the best of my knowledge have never been found to conspire to cheat. So there is something to be said for England in general "sticking to the rules".
Click to expand...
Atherton and the pocket full of dirt springs to mind....
 
Dialup said:
I think the reason the Aussies get a bad rep in particular is because they have actually been done for cheating, England as a team to the best of my knowledge have never been found to conspire to cheat. So there is something to be said for England in general "sticking to the rules".

I think the Aussies were wrong to do it - but they didn't actually do anything wrong. And I enjoyed Broad's reaction to it which put Starc and Cummins on the ropes and allowed Stokes to smash three balls in a row for 6
Click to expand...

Well there was that business with Atherton and a pocket full of dirt :)

I agree, technically Australia did nothing wrong. So then you have to ask why wasn't the standing umpire doing his job properly. It's his role to watch the ball intently until he feels it is dead and calls "over". He shouldn't immediately start fiddling with a cap in his pocket the moment the ball reaches the keeper, because technically the over is not dead until he says it is. And he can't say it is if he's not looking.

Things rapidly get messy and fussy and just a rubbish spectacle to watch if we go down this route of exploiting technicalities (just look at what VAR obsessing about tiny technicalities has done to football).
 
Sounded like a great game again, missed the final day but listening to most of it.

Shame England fell short but reckon they'll be coming out fighting now. Nothing to lose to some extent and if they turn over the aussies in 3 days next week with a spicy crowd there's nothing stopping them taking that forward. The batting performance showed that australia have limited game plans so just got to get through the opening 30 or so overs like we did in first innings but not playing like the team are sharing a braincell after that.
 
All teams push the boundaries. Ali lost his match fee for using an illegal spray on his hands in the first test, for example.

Carey is not the first wicket keeper to attempt a stumping like that and he won’t be the last. I think the umpires were caught off guard and maybe they would have been wise to give Cummins the opportunity to withdraw the appeal, however it is what it is.

Although it cost England a wicket I feel it really galvanised the team, and hurt Australia. They’re so determined to be seen as nice guys and their true colours came out a bit here. They seemed genuinely rattled by it all.

In terms of the game as a whole, it came down to fine margins but only because of Stokes’ incredible innings. England may feel a little aggrieved to be two down but this is a home series and we look second best in most facets of the game. Some of them can be excused but the biggest failing is how undercooked we look. Too many dropped chances, no balls and sloppy fielding.

Ultimately it feels like England have edged a few sessions in this game, and Australia have dominated a few. That’s been the difference in the first two Tests, whether with bat or ball. Their batsmen have ground us down when it matters, and their bowlers showed up when it matters. You only have to compare the bowlers’ response to England losing Moeen in the first test vs Australia losing Lyon in this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom