Cricket

[Baloo]

The OTT reaction of many English to this incident is papering over the delusion that Bazball isn’t working against the Australians.
Absolute hubris for a nation who thought they were & always do think that they’re better than us. Once this anger dissipates, reality will bite soon enough that they’re 0-2 down. You ain’t all that Essengland.

Yep, that's my read as well. Had pumped themselves up so much over Bazball and believing it was unbeatable only to be 0-2 down in the series. Pretty sure no matter how much we win the series by, the Poms will crow that they were the only ones playing the exciting game, the way the game should be played, and we had to resort to unsportsmanlike conduct to win. England will be the moral victors.

*smile* em

 

[MD Jazz]

For those that so there was no advantage that doesn't make sense.

The keeper threw the ball IMMEDIATELY upon it hitting the gloves. The batter does not check to see if the keeper had gloved it.

I'm not arguing it wasn't in the rules. Being out of your crease and having your stumps broken when the ball is live is out. He was given out.

I'm arguing its a disignenous way to get a wicket. It's not superior bolwing. It's not astute capataincy or field placing.

That he threw it immediately is irrelevant. Why did Carey throw it at all? Why don't they throw it every ball? He threw it because he had observed Bairstow's penchant for leaving his crease after playing the ball. Bairstow wasn't doing it to creep for a run. He wasn't starting outside his crease to negate swing. He was simply walking away, patting the wicket down, taking a break like most batsman do.

That Bairstow was stupid is inarguable. But that doesn't make the method of dismissal "cricket" for mine.

 

[RoarEmotion]

I'm not arguing it wasn't in the rules. Being out of your crease and having your stumps broken when the ball is live is out. He was given out.

I'm arguing its a disignenous way to get a wicket. It's not superior bolwing. It's not astute capataincy or field placing.

That he threw it immediately is irrelevant. Why did Carey throw it at all? Why don't they throw it every ball? He threw it because he had observed Bairstow's penchant for leaving his crease after playing the ball. Bairstow wasn't doing it to creep for a run. He wasn't starting outside his crease to negate swing. He was simply walking away, patting the wicket down, taking a break like most batsman do.

That Bairstow was stupid is inarguable. But that doesn't make the method of dismissal "cricket" for mine.

That’s cool. We can agree to disagree.

He was gaining an advantage in the case of fumble by the keeper he is closer to getting a run off a bye. Even if that’s not his intent (and we don’t know his mind) then it’s an advantage he is getting as I laid out.

Having been a keeper myself you don’t throw it every ball because then the batter is on to you - so you wait until they really screw up.

Switched on smart play by the Aussies for mine. Bet cricketers everywhere being shown this as an example of how you need to be switched on as a batter and fielder.

The distaste you have for the style of wicket is the same as the distaste I have for players that don’t know the rules and then get surprised when they get penalised. Amplified even further at an elite level. Previous English cricket captains clearly agree.

A game by its definition has an arbitrary set of rules that get invented. If you don’t know them then shame on you.

 

[MD Jazz]

That’s cool. We can agree to disagree.

He was gaining an advantage in the case of fumble by the keeper he is closer to getting a run off a bye. Even if that’s not his intent (and we don’t know his mind) then it’s an advantage he is getting as I laid out.

Long long bow.

 

[tigertim]

So what sort of pitch will the Poms serve up for the 3rd test? I'm guessing it won't be a road.

 

[MD Jazz]

So what sort of pitch will the Poms serve up for the 3rd test? I'm guessing it won't be a road.

Yeh, you'd think they would want something with a bit more fire but we've probably got the better bowling lineup. And the better batting.

Wonder if Anderson will get another go?

 

[tigersnake]

The OTT reaction of many English to this incident is papering over the delusion that Bazball isn’t working against the Australians.
Absolute hubris for a nation who thought they were & always do think that they’re better than us. Once this anger dissipates, reality will bite soon enough that they’re 0-2 down. You ain’t all that Essengland.

Yeah posted at the start, someone else wrote an article on it, if they win its bazball is great, if they lose its because they are embracing imperfection or whatever and they still morally win. Some sports writer, dunno if they were Aussie or english, said, satirically, England are winning the 'Moral Ashes' 2-0.

Really strange reactions from the press, first day first test the reactions to our 'normball' were OTT, like kids throwing a tantrum. Cummins was lambasted for not joining the bazball party. Then again first day this test, they were'nt getting the wickets they felt entitled to, more tantrums against their own players. Then reaction to the JB stumping, this time from the fans rather than the press, is way OTT. Reactions and analysis based on bazball hype and wishful thinking rather than reality.

 

[tigertim]

Yeh, you'd think they would want something with a bit more fire but we've probably got the better bowling lineup. And the better batting.

Wonder if Anderson will get another go?

Hope so. 3/226 this series so far.

 

[CarnTheTiges]

Yeh, you'd think they would want something with a bit more fire but we've probably got the better bowling lineup. And the better batting.

Wonder if Anderson will get another go?

5 Tests, and the bloke is 40 years old. It would be sensible to give him a rest.

 

[TigerForce]

So what sort of pitch will the Poms serve up for the 3rd test? I'm guessing it won't be a road.

Reports are the Headingley pitch is dry due to a lot of sun and should be good for Smurph to spin.

 

[UKTiger]

I'm not arguing it wasn't in the rules. Being out of your crease and having your stumps broken when the ball is live is out. He was given out.

I'm arguing its a disignenous way to get a wicket. It's not superior bolwing. It's not astute capataincy or field placing.

That he threw it immediately is irrelevant. Why did Carey throw it at all? Why don't they throw it every ball? He threw it because he had observed Bairstow's penchant for leaving his crease after playing the ball. Bairstow wasn't doing it to creep for a run. He wasn't starting outside his crease to negate swing. He was simply walking away, patting the wicket down, taking a break like most batsman do.

That Bairstow was stupid is inarguable. But that doesn't make the method of dismissal "cricket" for mine.

My view exactly

 

[UKTiger]

5 Tests, and the bloke is 40 years old. It would be sensible to give him a rest.

For me, Anderson has been a fine bowler over the years but age is telling and he has lost his spark so no longer a threat. Some will note I have the same opinion of our champs. Always sad when they go a year too long

 

[Dustintime]

I'm not arguing it wasn't in the rules. Being out of your crease and having your stumps broken when the ball is live is out. He was given out.

I'm arguing its a disignenous way to get a wicket. It's not superior bolwing. It's not astute capataincy or field placing.

That he threw it immediately is irrelevant. Why did Carey throw it at all? Why don't they throw it every ball? He threw it because he had observed Bairstow's penchant for leaving his crease after playing the ball. Bairstow wasn't doing it to creep for a run. He wasn't starting outside his crease to negate swing. He was simply walking away, patting the wicket down, taking a break like most batsman do.

That Bairstow was stupid is inarguable. But that doesn't make the method of dismissal "cricket" for mine.

Well said. Thought when Broad was carrying on we saw how stupid it would become if run outs like that became the norm.

 

[RoarEmotion]

Long long bow.

That's fine - it's not my main view anyway but feel that's why the 'dead ball' is the rule.

To me it's really smart cricket per the rules. Well done on being aware and shame on the batter.

You have a view of how the game should be played that is completely subjective and 100% in the eye of the beholder.

Some see it as clever, some see it as breaking some kind of unwritten code. Do you walk when you hit it? Do you get called back when you didn't and have no challenges left?

Bodyline was deemed unfair by the authorities so they changed the rules. If this is deemed unfair, then the rules should be changed so if the batter thinks the over is done they can't be out. Good luck enforcing that one.

 

[Wildride]

Well said. Thought when Broad was carrying on we saw how stupid it would become if run outs like that became the norm.

They wouldn’t be the norm if the batters just stayed in the crease until either the keeper passed the ball or the umps call over like the rules state…

 

[Wildride]

Just one thing on the ‘spirit of cricket’. It was always something that players could pick and choose when to invoke - see Broad not walking, Aussies sledging, Bodyline, the Windies bowling bouncers etc etc.

With the advent of DRS and video reviews of every catch close to the ground, I think it’s time to admit defeat on the spirit of cricket. No batter walks now on catches, both sides will challenge 50-50 calls to gain a wicket etc. These LBW reviews aren’t in the spirit of the game if you’re being pedantic as you should only be reviewing if you think there’s a clear howler. I think the genie is out of the bottle.

 

[Streak]

that Bazball isn’t working against the Australians.

I actually disagree.

Before I make my case though, let me say I hate this term Bazball, and refuse to use it. I will call it ultra aggressive instead.

I think the ultra aggressive approach has made this Ashes series closer than I would have thought it would be. I don't think on paper that the English come anywhere near this Australian team. If Marnus was in better form, we'd be nigh on unbeatable, which shows how critical a good No.3 is.

The English batsmen, talent wise, are close enough to make it interesting, but they lack a genuine opener in the Usman K style, and apart from Root and Stokes none are that experienced that you have faith in them. Their tail is long and very brittle.

If they didn't have Broad, their attack (with all due respect to Anderson who was a fantastic bowler but well into the twilight of his career) would be very average. Robinson is a stock toiler, and Tongue looks a likely type but is very green. Ali brought out of retirement speaks volumes for their spin stocks ATM.

And Bristow is not a test level keeper. If anything costs the English the Ashes (which seems inevitable) it is his ongoing selection ahead of a better gloveman, albeit one that probably can't bat anywhere near as well. His misses have costs them both tests IMO.

So that said, I think the ultra aggressive tactics have actually put Australia under some pressure and certainly given the English significant hope in both tests so far. That they haven't finished it off doesn't mean that ultra aggressive is a failure, I think it just means it needs a little work. That the series has been this close is due to the English tactics, not talent. Stokes in the last test aside, the Englishmen have reasonably underperformed so far.

I for one hope England keep playing the way they have, with just some refinement calling for a more logical test match approach to batting when the situation calls for it.

 

[Streak]

Just one thing on the ‘spirit of cricket’. It was always something that players could pick and choose when to invoke - see Broad not walking, Aussies sledging, Bodyline, the Windies bowling bouncers etc etc.

With the advent of DRS and video reviews of every catch close to the ground, I think it’s time to admit defeat on the spirit of cricket. No batter walks now on catches, both sides will challenge 50-50 calls to gain a wicket etc. These LBW reviews aren’t in the spirit of the game if you’re being pedantic as you should only be reviewing if you think there’s a clear howler. I think the genie is out of the bottle.

Could not agree more. DRS has removed the Spirit of the Game in large part by making it clinical. I hate the system and would rather go back to backing in neutral umpires. The only bit I like is the mandatory checking of no balls at the fall of each wicket. It is hard enough for an umpire to call no balls at C grade country cricket level, let alone test matches.

It sh*ts me to tears when I see a square leg umpire, for example, not call a clear run out for fear of getting it wrong. It seems you can be out by a couple of metres these days but they still check it.

I have even seen a situation in an ODI where a square leg was blind sided for a run out by a fielder standing in his line of vision. In the old days that was not out, and the fielders fault. On this occasion, the square league went to the camera footage and the batsmen was given out. A travesty IMO.

 

[Dustintime]

They wouldn’t be the norm if the batters just stayed in the crease until either the keeper passed the ball or the umps call over like the rules state…

Broad acting like a goose highlighted how often it could be done. Batter hits ball to close fielder and everyone starts wandering off to the next over but technically the umpire hasn’t quite said over yet so they all go through a silly little routine of freezing there until the umpire moves. Much better if everyone just plays like gentlemen as they do now.

 

[year of the tiger]

5 Tests, and the bloke is 40 years old. It would be sensible to give him a rest.

Or did you mean put out to pasture ………… a true champion but no longer

Yep, that's my read as well. Had pumped themselves up so much over Bazball and believing it was unbeatable only to be 0-2 down in the series. Pretty sure no matter how much we win the series by, the Poms will crow that they were the only ones playing the exciting game, the way the game should be played, and we had to resort to unsportsmanlike conduct to win. England will be the moral victors.

*smile* em

Yes. They believed their own hype, thought they were invincible and they can’t accept they are being outplayed and out smarted 2 tests in a row.

You could read it from their reaction to the first test even though they lost, their hype raised the bar, they were the better team playing the better cricket, they lost the test rather than we won it.

……….

I'm arguing its a disignenous way to get a wicket. It's not superior bolwing. It's not astute capataincy or field placing.

………

Agree, it’s not superior bowling or batting etc, what it is is superior wicket keeping.

They all do it, it is part of the game, but for some reasons the poms are clutching at excuses because they convinced themselves that their buzzball was indestructible………… see my comment to Balloo above.