2nd Test Wed 28 June-2 July 2023 - Lord's

[Grumpy Git]

It’s within the rules, but it’s just not cricket. The Aussies don’t care for sportsmanship. In 1981, NZ needed a six from the final ball of the day to win a one day international. So the Aussies bowled a grass cutter underarm. Not illegal, but not sportsmanship.
It’s like a team kicking the ball out for an injury to your team, then from the restart your team score from the throw in. Not good.

 

[tonyw]

I don’t think anyone is disputing if it’s out or not, it’s just a low down, dirty, rattish way to get someone out. It’s also far worse than a Mankad.

Agreed.

At least with a Mankad, the non-striker is attempting to get an unfair advantage - still a cheap way to get a wicket, but there's some justification.

The Bairstow dismissal, he's seeking no advantage. He's being a bit casual, but it's pure 'wicket-by-technicality'. Way, way outside the spirit of the game.

You know you've done something unsporting when the frickin' Lords members are jostling and barging you on your way to lunch!

Crowds are going to be turned up to eleven for the rest of the series; and I imagine the sledging and aggression in the middle too. Sadly don't think it will change the course of things, however, unless and until the England batsmen follow their captain and learn a tiny modicum of discipline.

 

[Grumpy Git]

If we were to blow car horns outside their hotel before the next test match so they didn’t get any sleep, would that be bad sportsmanship? In England it would be, but I”m talking using Aussie Sportsmanship rules.

 

[PQ]

I don't blame the Aussies as I expected this of them but the umpires?!!!

At the point the ball had rested in Cummins gloves and Bairstow had purposely touched his back foot down in the crease (both happened almost simultaneously) the ball was dead.

Having watched this passage of play on BBC many times it seems to me Carey throws the ball towards the stumps a nanosecond after Bairstow deliberately "scratched" his crease with his right boot.(.. R to L as Carey would have seen it). I'd love to have proper freeze-frame to be sure.. but is that deliberate and quite clear "boot scratching the crease" movement by Bairstow of any significance in the modern game? Why did he do that?..was that his way of emphasising that the ball (in his opinion) is now "dead". I think that's why he did that..whether or not it makes any difference given the rules of the game I doubt.

It was very a unfortunate loss of wicket for both Bairstow & England and clearly turned the game significantly in Australia's favour. If Bairstow and Stokes had stayed together I genuinely believe the ending would have been much closer..maybe even diifferent.

Some commentators would say (& they did) that Bairstow was "dozy" or "sloppy".. but that action by Carey was exactly what I would have expected of an Australia side..they always want to win at any cost.

"Stokes said he would have withdrawn the appeal in that situation." (BBC) and I believe that to be true.

He said " I asked the umps if they called over, they said no. End of the day it's out. If the shoe was on the other foot, I'd have to have a think around spirit of the game. It's happened, it's out,"

Stokes questions if Bairstow exit in 'spirit of the game' | Flashscore.co.uk

England captain Ben Stokes insisted he would not have wanted to win a game of cricket with the kind of dismissal that led to Jonny Bairstow's controversial exit during Australia's victory in the second Ashes Test at Lord's.

www.flashscore.co.uk

The Aussies have shown what they are about and their laughing/puerile celebrations after the "stumping" quite frankly stick in my craw. Imo they deserved to be booed off the pitch and in the Long room.

Karma?.. we'll see!?

 

[Sharp Edges]

For the aussies to have cheated they would have had to have broken a rule...... they havent.
I remember Stuart Broad middling it to the slips a few years ago and was amazingly given not out, he didnt walk. He didnt cheat, was it in the spirit of the game? Was it f**k. As has been said what goes around comes around.

Ultimately it was another brainless decision by one of our batsmen to go with the many others in this test and last. We should have won the first test but lost it through our own errors, we had the best of conditions in this test and lost again. The reality is we are 2 down and should be 2 up, thats nothing to do with aussies cheating or umpires making bad decisions and everything to do with our own poor performance/decision making.

 

[38yearsofpain]

Not sure they can be forgiven for cheating because we expect them to cheat!

The rest of this test series will be toxic, Headingley on Thursday will
I suspect see the Aussies booed for the full five days.
The ethics of the team were set by Smith and Warner and whilst they are still in place this team will remain morally bankrupt. They may be a great team but that will be disregarded for immortality, the teams win at all cost just goes beyond decency.

 

[Leysboy]

For the aussies to have cheated they would have had to have broken a rule...... they havent.
I remember Stuart Broad middling it to the slips a few years ago and was amazingly given not out, he didnt walk. He didnt cheat, was it in the spirit of the game? Was it f**k. As has been said what goes around comes around.

Ultimately it was another brainless decision by one of our batsmen to go with the many others in this test and last. We should have won the first test but lost it through our own errors, we had the best of conditions in this test and lost again. The reality is we are 2 down and should be 2 up, thats nothing to do with aussies cheating or umpires making bad decisions and everything to do with our own poor performance/decision making.

Absolutely right.

Bairstow fault, he decided to go for a little wonder down the wicket. The Aussies were switched on and got him out. It was his own fault, and nothing underhanded about the dismissal at all.

 

[IsleofWightYellow]

Absolutely right.

Bairstow fault, he decided to go for a little wonder down the wicket. The Aussies were switched on and got him out. It was his own fault, and nothing underhanded about the dismissal at all.

It’s not ‘cheating’ but it absolutely is underhanded. He’s avoided the short ball, it was in to the keepers gloves, he wasn’t running anywhere, he thought the ball was dead.

An ex Australian bowler was on TMS very uncomfortable with it and saying he wouldn’t want to take a wicket like that. It’s clearly not just a normal dismissal with nothing underhand about it.

 

[PQ]

Indeed IOW Yellow.
As GrumpyGit has alluded to they have form in underhand manoeuvres.. quite literally:

Underarm bowling incident of 1981 - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[PQ]

“As a direct result of the incident, underarm bowling was banned by the International Cricket Council as "not within the spirit of the game".[8][17]”

 

[Northstandboy]

I keep looking back and the more I think JB is to blame, he’s out of his crease seconds after the ball goes over him.

 

[Oufcrealist]

Very bad sportsmanship but unfortunately within the rules. Bairstow shouldn't have given him the opportunity, simple.
I know one thing, if our batters continue to bat in the reckless kamikaze fashion they have been Australia will win 5-0.
Drop Crawley (it won't happen)let Bairstow move up the order. Bring back Foakes to bat at seven.
Bairstow's keeping has been shabby and Foakes is probably the best in the world. Had he kept in the first test there could well have been a different outcome.
Hopefully Wood will be fit enough to bowl to inject some extra pace into the attack.

 

[PQ]

“20.1 Ball is dead

20.1.1 The ball becomes dead when

20.1.1.1 it is finally settled in the hands of the wicket-keeper or of the bowler.”

Did Carey have the ball firmly in his hands?… i.e. BOTH hands as wicket keepers normally do with such a delivery.

In my view yes he did.

He then transferred the ball to his right hand to throw down the wicket for a “stumping”.

 

[Leysboy]

It’s not ‘cheating’ but it absolutely is underhanded. He’s avoided the short ball, it was in to the keepers gloves, he wasn’t running anywhere, he thought the ball was dead.

An ex Australian bowler was on TMS very uncomfortable with it and saying he wouldn’t want to take a wicket like that. It’s clearly not just a normal dismissal with nothing underhand about it.

He “thought” the ball was dead. It wasn’t! We have to accept it and move on, Bairstow has played so many games, and should know better. Now we need to try and make the best out of a bad situation we are 2-0 down to these buggers, and I hate losing to this lot.

 

[IsleofWightYellow]

He “thought” the ball was dead. It wasn’t! We have to accept it and move on, Bairstow has played so many games, and should know better. Now we need to try and make the best out of a bad situation we are 2-0 down to these buggers, and I hate losing to this lot.

The thing is, as Alistair Cook said on TMS, it might actually help us if we don’t just accept it and move on. If the crowd and the England team are fired up about this it could get things going a bit, bring some energy to the team. Look what it did to Ben Stokes.

I won’t be accepting anything. The Australians are sly little rats and I hope they get thoroughly booed while JB and Stokes smash angry centuries.

 

[tonyw]

Having watched this passage of play on BBC many times it seems to me Carey throws the ball towards the stumps a nanosecond after Bairstow deliberately "scratched" his crease with his right boot.(.. R to L as Carey would have seen it). I'd love to have proper freeze-frame to be sure.. but is that deliberate and quite clear "boot scratching the crease" movement by Bairstow of any significance in the modern game? Why did he do that?..was that his way of emphasising that the ball (in his opinion) is now "dead". I think that's why he did that..whether or not it makes any difference given the rules of the game I doubt.

Jonathan Agnew was talking about that.

Apparently Bairstow (as well as some other batsmen) does it all the time. It's a signal to the umpire and the opposition that he sees the ball as dead, and is no longer going to attempt to run, score or do anything else that ball.

It has absolutely no basis in the laws of the game (the umpire not the batsman gets to decide when the ball is dead). But anyone who was playing the game in a spirit of honest, fair competition would recognize what Bairstow was doing - and even if Carey did throw down the stumps, you sure as hell wouldn't uphold the appeal.

But that's the Smith/Warner Aussie team - zero interest in playing with any honour, and actually settling the game fairly and squarely on the field.

To be fair, I don't think it's a national trait. The great late 90s/early 00s Aussie team played the game as hard as it can be played, but they would never have stooped to something like this.

 

[Sheik djibouti]

Isn't it the case with a Mankad that you have to warn the non-striking batsman or at least inform the umpire of your intention beforehand is he keeps leaving his ground? At least that's what I was told when I used to play!

In this example, it seemed pretty clear that the umpire thought the over was finished, even if he hadn't called "over" because he was already starting to move and looking down at his pocket/retrieving a hat, rather than looking at the action...not to mention Carey had already had the ball in both gloves before transferring to his right to throw down the stumps.

Headingley could well be the most hostile test in recent history as a result - keeps it interesting at least!

 

[Yellow River]

Jonathan Agnew was talking about that.

Apparently Bairstow (as well as some other batsmen) does it all the time. It's a signal to the umpire and the opposition that he sees the ball as dead, and is no longer going to attempt to run, score or do anything else that ball.

It has absolutely no basis in the laws of the game (the umpire not the batsman gets to decide when the ball is dead). But anyone who was playing the game in a spirit of honest, fair competition would recognize what Bairstow was doing - and even if Carey did throw down the stumps, you sure as hell wouldn't uphold the appeal.

But that's the Smith/Warner Aussie team - zero interest in playing with any honour, and actually settling the game fairly and squarely on the field.

To be fair, I don't think it's a national trait. The great late 90s/early 00s Aussie team played the game as hard as it can be played, but they would never have stooped to something like this.

Agree.

In the end I think it comes down to the senior players. I bet a team with a senior player like Adam Gilchrist in the side would‘ve withdrawn their appeal.

When it comes to decency and ‘spirit of the game’, Influential senior players like Smith and Warner ( as history has shown in South Africa) have low, low standards.

Fine player though he is, Cummins has gone way down in my estimation as a captain and leader, he could and should have withdrawn the appeal

 

[PQ]

Fair point about the “end of the over” behaviour by the umpire(s) by SD above. However, this type of occurrence can happen after any ball of the over. I watched on Sky and though I replayed the BBC clip many times had not heard Agnew’s comment about the “guard scratching” and what Bairstow ( & others so say) think it signifies ( wrongly it seems ..according to “the rules”). If Agnew is right and this convention is generally accepted by players it makes the whole episode even more distasteful. If in his defence Carey says he threw the ball before that “sign”, or did not see it, Cummings could and should have overturned the appeal for a stumping in my opinion. Instead the Aussies (to a man?) whooped and hollered like a bunch of adolescent school kids in celebration of their underhandednrss. It quite possibly won them the Ashes… but not too many admirers.

 

[Sharp Edges]

It’s not ‘cheating’ but it absolutely is underhanded. He’s avoided the short ball, it was in to the keepers gloves, he wasn’t running anywhere, he thought the ball was dead.

An ex Australian bowler was on TMS very uncomfortable with it and saying he wouldn’t want to take a wicket like that. It’s clearly not just a normal dismissal with nothing underhand about it.

Bairstow had been wandering around out of his crease earlier in the over, more brainlessness.

On the delivery he was out Bairstow never turned back to see what happened to the ball, he ducked, scratched his foot and wandered off. Had the ball burst through his hands while Bairstow was scratching and Stokes had called him through to run byes would he have stopped and said he believed the ball to dead so we wont take the runs? Would he B*****s.

Andrew Strauss said he had no issue with it, the only issue I have is with Bairstow.

The guidelines on spirit of cricket refer to accepting the umpires decision, or is that only when it suites?