The England Cricket Thread

The MCC is not tolerating any unsporting shenanigans.

MCC has issued an unreserved apology to Australia after some of their players were abused when walking through the Long Room on day five of the second Ashes Test at Lord's, following the controversial dismissal of Jonny Bairstow, with Usman Khawaja describing what was said as "pretty disrespectful".

Khawaja and David Warner were shown on TV footage getting into a heated exchange with MCC members as the Australians went to their dressing room at lunch, with the stewards having to intervene. MCC said on Sunday evening that three members had been suspended pending investigation.
Click to expand...

Love to see it.
 
Oyeee said:
What ever happened to Archer :(
Click to expand...
His body keeps giving up on him, I know the riggers of fast bowling takes it's toll on the body but in Archer's case his body just hasn't been able to handle the riger. I'm no expert but one thing I'll pint to is look at all the top fast bowlers from today and even from the 90's they have broad shoulders and are strong looking guys (Ambrose, Mitchel Johnson, Donald, Hazelwood, Starc, Tate, Harmison, Flintoff etc). To me Archer looks like he could do with filling out his body a bit more which would help his joints to absorb the impact better when he releases the ball.
 
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...
Except trying to pinch ground as a batter is trying to give yourself an advantage to make getting a single easier. So I’m more sympathetic to getting people out that way.

What Bairstow was doing doesn’t give him any advantage. He thought the ball was dead. He wasn’t going down the wicket to sneak a run. He was going to chat to the other batsman at the end of the over.

Yeah yeah technically out. I agree, but it’s bad sportsmanship. People want to see batsman making great innings or bowlers delivering great balls to get batsmen out or spectacular catches. This is not what people want to see, it’s not good cricket, and there’s no real cricketing skill in getting a batsman out that way. It’s just crap all round. Ben Stokes summed it up really “I wouldn’t want to win that way”.
 
Last edited:
Mason- said:
Except trying to pinch ground as a batter is trying to give yourself an advantage to make getting a single easier. So I’m more sympathetic to getting people out that way.

What Bairstow was doing doesn’t give him any advantage. He thought the ball was dead. He wasn’t going down the wicket to sneak a run. He was going to chat to the other batsman at the end of the over.

Yeah yeah technically out. I agree, but it’s bad sportsmanship. People want to see batsman making great innings or bowlers delivering great balls to get batsmen out or spectacular catches. This is not what people want to see, it’s not good cricket, and there’s no real cricketing skill in getting a batsman out that way. It’s just crap all round. Ben Stokes summed it up really “I wouldn’t want to win that way”.
Click to expand...

And when Broad edged a ball to slip and didn't walk off, that was "bad cricket" too was it?
 
Shame there's no limited overs vs Australia this summer or I wonder if we might have seen a cheeky mankad from England. :)

My take on it was I've seen worse 'sporting behaviour' in cricket and Bairstow will need to learn from that. You come out of your crease and you can be run out or stumped, that's how it works regardless of whether you were intending to steal an advantage. I can see how it might happen with the overs ticking by and you just take it for granted that it's end of the over but ultimately it's the umpire that announces the end of the over so if he hasn't done that the ball could be deemed still in play. One of the commentators made the point that Carey doesn't really delay a huge amount, he takes the ball and then fairly soon after has a shy at the stumps.

Great entertainment anyway yesterday. I did notice the scoring rate dropped dramatically around the 100 remaining mark, it basically went 96, 95, 94 at around 1 per over, I mentioned it to the wife at the time. I think Australia realised they could just slow things down a bit especially as Stokes wasn't taking many runs, he was basically looking to just hit boundaries or a single from ball 4 onwards and then Broad was generally blocking. They had enough runs in the bank to say OK, if England are only going to run maybe 20 runs here they will need to hit 20 boundaries and there's a good chance he gets out eventually. That's the one criticism I'd have of the approach, is could they have utilised Broad's bat a bit more, Stokes even turned down a 2 from Broad at one point which seemed bizarre (I guess he didn't want to risk it nor have to abort after a single and lose strike next over). But it's a tough call, if Broad had got out first people would be saying Stokes was in the zone and all he had to do was stick around.
 
The most ridiculous thing about Bairstow was that if he'd literally stood there for another 1 second he wouldn't have been out. When the ball hits the stumps on the slow-mo you can see it's as his foot is walking over the line.

It is dosy batting and I am not at all surprised it was him based on his dosy play in general!

If he had been wicket keeper he'd have done the same thing. Of course he wouldn't have caught the ball let alone hit the stumps with it.
 
Dialup said:
The most ridiculous thing about Bairstow was that if he'd literally stood there for another 1 second he wouldn't have been out. When the ball hits the stumps on the slow-mo you can see it's as his foot is walking over the line.

It is dosy batting and I am not at all surprised it was him based on his dosy play in general!

If he had been wicket keeper he'd have done the same thing. Of course he wouldn't have caught the ball let alone hit the stumps with it.
Click to expand...
As I posted above, he managed to catch it but failed to hit the stumps when he tried it during Australia's innings. If I was the opposition I'd assume such a dismissal was fair game once we were in the field.
 
HangTime said:
Shame there's no limited overs vs Australia this summer or I wonder if we might have seen a cheeky mankad from England. :)

My take on it was I've seen worse 'sporting behaviour' in cricket and Bairstow will need to learn from that. You come out of your crease and you can be run out or stumped, that's how it works regardless of whether you were intending to steal an advantage. I can see how it might happen with the overs ticking by and you just take it for granted that it's end of the over but ultimately it's the umpire that announces the end of the over so if he hasn't done that the ball could be deemed still in play. One of the commentators made the point that Carey doesn't really delay a huge amount, he takes the ball and then fairly soon after has a shy at the stumps.

Great entertainment anyway yesterday. I did notice the scoring rate dropped dramatically around the 100 remaining mark, it basically went 96, 95, 94 at around 1 per over, I mentioned it to the wife at the time. I think Australia realised they could just slow things down a bit especially as Stokes wasn't taking many runs, he was basically looking to just hit boundaries or a single from ball 4 onwards and then Broad was generally blocking. They had enough runs in the bank to say OK, if England are only going to run maybe 20 runs here they will need to hit 20 boundaries and there's a good chance he gets out eventually. That's the one criticism I'd have of the approach, is could they have utilised Broad's bat a bit more, Stokes even turned down a 2 from Broad at one point which seemed bizarre (I guess he didn't want to risk it nor have to abort after a single and lose strike next over). But it's a tough call, if Broad had got out first people would be saying Stokes was in the zone and all he had to do was stick around.
Click to expand...
Maybe the smart thing would have been to start dropping the ball into the gaps and running 1s and 2s but I think STokes was trying to balance that against how weak the England tail is and protecting Broad. Having Bairstow down the other end would have changed the game for sure.
 
One More Solo said:
Maybe the smart thing would have been to start dropping the ball into the gaps and running 1s and 2s but I think STokes was trying to balance that against how weak the England tail is and protecting Broad. Having Bairstow down the other end would have changed the game for sure.
Click to expand...

But Broad can bat? At least he used to be able to bat.

If the final three had been left with 30-40 to get that would've been doable-ish, did anyone work out how many singles Stoakes gave up?

I kind of question why the tail-end needs to be so weak when there are players we could bring in who have a better record
 
Last edited:
No point on calling out the Australians on poor sportsmanship it's not going to change them or their attitudes. It should be obvious from our own prison system people generally don't change.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom