Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
winteriscoming

The ashes 2023

By winteriscoming, in General Football and Sport

Recommended Posts

StanSP

StanSP

Posted
Posted
43 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

Because taking a wicket this way is totally against the spirit of the game. The ball was dead in any sort of competitive sense.

Was it? 

 

 

22 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

But why has it pissed people off with anyone but Bairstow? Was just stupid. Can't blame the wicket keeper. 

Bairstow barely even argued it, and didn't look that pissed off either. I think even he knew it was probably fair, ultimately. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
steve555

steve555

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, Bert said:

The ball wasn’t dead at all. Even in the spirit of the game, I don’t think it was. Watch the view from behind Carey. 

Definitely wasn't dead, only thing that was dead was Bairstow's brain. Carey threw it immediately he caught it , Bairstow was still in his crease at that point, he just carried on walking without looking behind.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bmt

bmt

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Sparrowhawk said:

Lotta fuss about not very much. It's not like they bowled underarm or anything.

Sorry, England bowled a couple of bouncers at Australia in the bodyline series and they threatened to break diplomatic relations because it was unsportsmanlike.

 

Cheating ***** 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bmt

bmt

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, steve555 said:

Definitely wasn't dead, only thing that was dead was Bairstow's brain. Carey threw it immediately he caught it , Bairstow was still in his crease at that point, he just carried on walking without looking behind.

It doesn't matter whether it's dead. Everyone knows it's out by the letter of the law. It's just not cricket though is it

Edited by bmt
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sparrowhawk

Sparrowhawk

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, bmt said:

Sorry, England bowled a couple of bouncers at Australia in the bodyline series and they threatened to break diplomatic relations because it was unsportsmanlike.

Bodyline was probably why Australia subsequently decided that the 'spirit of the game' thing was for mugs...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bmt

bmt

Posted
Posted
56 minutes ago, Raj said:

"Spirit of the game".

Do what you need to win.

Wish some of our players had that mentality last season, we wouldn't be in the championship!

This is bullshit. Spirit of the game is literally a rule it's not something that should be in quotation marks. Embarrassing from Australia 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
st albans fox

st albans fox

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
1 hour ago, StanSP said:

Why can the laws take a hike? 

 

Just when it suits? 

this could now get very silly - Broad was taking it to extremes in grounding his bat and checking the ball was dead but I can see headingly being very tedious in this regard. 
 

59 minutes ago, The People's Hero said:

Didn’t Ollie Pope do similarly last year and everyone was hailing his quick thinking? Seems like just partisan BS to me. Wherever you genuinely stand on it, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. 

 

56 minutes ago, Raj said:

Exactly

Still playing like it's the olde boys club.

Get nasty and win.


pope’s was a very different context.  

 

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Imagine the start of the third Test. Aus batting,

 

Broad rolls in and mankads Warner at the non strikers end first ball.

 

That would spice things up nicely.

To me it was effectively a mankad 

Carey had seen what Bairstow was doing and judged it would be a legal stumping if he did it. Just as a bowler sees a non striker backing up too far.  But there should be a warning given imo. Bairstow will say that he was marking himself as in by scraping his foot on his mark inside the crease before wandering up the pitch.  If the Aussies had a problem with that then they should be warning him about it.  there are conventions in the game and I consider this to be one of those occasions,  if Bairstow was just walking up the pitch then I can understand that this would aggravate Carey and the bowler somewhat. The fact he marked his foot before he walked is what makes the difference 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Craig

Craig

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
Just now, st albans fox said:

this could now get very silly - Broad was taking it to extremes in grounding his bat and checking the ball was dead but I can see headingly being very tedious in this regard. 
 

 


pope’s was a very different context.  

 

To me it was effectively a mankad 

Carey had seen what Bairstow was doing and judged it would be a legal stumping if he did it. Just as a bowler sees a non striker backing up too far.  But there should be a warning given imo. Bairstow will say that he was marking himself as in by scraping his foot on his mark inside the crease before wandering up the pitch.  If the Aussies had a problem with that then they should be warning him about it.  there are conventions in the game and I consider this to be one of those occasions,  if Bairstow was just walking up the pitch then I can understand that this would aggravate Carey and the bowler somewhat. The fact he marked his foot before he walked is what makes the difference 

I'd say it's worse than a mankad in that Bairstow wasn't trying to gain an advantage like the non-striker often does. 

 

Having seen it back and listened to what the Aussies had to say about it, clearly it was pre-meditated and most certainly not in keeping with the spirit of cricket. 

 

Bairstow was idiotically naive, but the Aussies exploited what would usually be a completely harmless action from him. 

 

Should be spicy at Headingley. 

  • Like 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Spudulike

Spudulike

Posted
Posted

Australia gave much thought into the culture of the game and mindset of their players following the Smith/Warner sandpaper ball tampering. This incident and the Australian attitudes perhaps shows that it still contaminates some players. It could so easily have been avoided by withdrawing the appeal. Very poor. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sparrowhawk

Sparrowhawk

Posted
Posted
46 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

Australia gave much thought into the culture of the game and mindset of their players following the Smith/Warner sandpaper ball tampering. This incident and the Australian attitudes perhaps shows that it still contaminates some players. It could so easily have been avoided by withdrawing the appeal. Very poor. 

Totally different things.

Ball tampering is breaking the rules and is cheating, pure and simple.

Whatever running someone out when he presumably thought the ball was dead is, it isn't that.

Withdrawing the appeal would have been good imo, but this ain't the same as ball tampering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sparrowhawk

Sparrowhawk

Posted
Posted

More generally, the idea of 'the spirit of cricket' is a load of nonsense.

 

Does 'the spirit of cricket' include bowling bouncers at tailenders, scuffing up the pitch, deliberately slowing over rates, appealing for things you know aren't out, sledging, or any of the other unsporting stuff cricketers have done since time immemorial? No it effing doesn't. There's never been any such thing as 'the spirit of cricket.'

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Spudulike

Spudulike

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Sparrowhawk said:

Totally different things.

Ball tampering is breaking the rules and is cheating, pure and simple.

Whatever running someone out when he presumably thought the ball was dead is, it isn't that.

Withdrawing the appeal would have been good imo, but this ain't the same as ball tampering.

Not comparing the two. My point is that was the catalyst for the Australia cricket board to take a long, in-depth look at the culture and mentality of the players they were producing and whether the win-at-all-costs attitude needed to be reigned in. Today's incident although different, shows that it hasn't been entirely eradicated. Cummings had the chance to withdraw the appeal and didn't. Also his after match comments describing it as 'fair play' says more about him as a person. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...