The Ashes: Australia in England 16th Jun - 31 July

[alfie]

I have no argument about the "out" being the correct decision. Though had the umpire actually called "over" immediately while taking the bowlers cap out to hand it to him it would have been a different matter. Bairstow should not have gone gardening so quickly and Carey was within his rights to throw the stumps down.

However it is pretty clear that Carey had noted Jonny's tendency to move off fairly quickly and decided to try one - as he tossed the ball , quite slowly , as soon as he had gathered it - with Jonny still in his crease. And of course he had moved out just before the ball struck...

So yes , cunning plan worked. All legal. But this is where I take issue with what happened. Cummins could proceed with the appeal ; or withdraw it on the grounds that the batsman was clearly not taking any advantage (unlike a potential mankad victim) or actually attempting any cricketing action. He chose (unlike Vettori in similar circumstances a few years back against Paul Collingwood) to prioritise winning at all costs over spirit of cricket. His call.

Ironically it nearly cost his team the match. Fired up Stokes , seemed to somehow disturb his team's catching ... made what should have been an easy win into a nervy hour or two. And unfortunately has revived a lot of the views (home and away) that Australian teams aren't very honourable.

OK many will - clearly do - disagree ; say it's all fair etc etc. Opinions , sure. But it's not the way I play the game ; not the way Stokes does either. And it wasn't what I expected from Pat Cummins. Doesn't make him the Devil. But has lessened my respect for him quite a lot.

Mainly I am sad that the whole thing has caused such unnecessary bad feeling - crowds often get aroused but you don't often see Lord's members going off like that ! And I really don't want to see Australian Cricket again highlighted for valuing the result over "ethical" issues - however unfairly. Has spoiled what was otherwise a terrific cricket match for me.

I congratulate them on a (deserved) win. But I wonder if Cummins will - like McCullum - come to regret today in a few years time.

[sussexpob]

to prioritise winning at all costs over spirit of cricket

I mention this purely in the spirit of debate, rather than to create an argument about what you wrote..... but is it possible for someone to play against the spirit of the game, while playing within the rules? It occurs to me that the "spirit of the game" is quite a nebulous concept, and surely the spirit of what is wrong and right are contained within the laws of the game? If what occurred was considered outside the boundary of what is correct, then why were the laws constructed like that?

[Arthur Crabtree]

Spirit of the game touches on things that are difficult to quantify in rules, which mostly cover things like line calls. They cover things like attitude, intentions, justifying the means etc. The reason why people are not run out all the time like JB was, is because players can see no one is trying to gain an advantage, so it's tolerated.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Looks like for the Aussie press, England are the villains.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/ ... ontroversy

Except for Brad Hogg!

[alfie]

to prioritise winning at all costs over spirit of cricket

I mention this purely in the spirit of debate, rather than to create an argument about what you wrote..... but is it possible for someone to play against the spirit of the game, while playing within the rules? It occurs to me that the "spirit of the game" is quite a nebulous concept, and surely the spirit of what is wrong and right are contained within the laws of the game? If what occurred was considered outside the boundary of what is correct, then why were the laws constructed like that?

Yes sure "spirit of cricket" is indeed a bit vague and subject to individual interpretation. I used it , I suppose , as a sort of handy label. No question , different people see these things differently.

The thing is though , strict "by the laws" doesn't cover everything. I am old enough to remember a great Australian keeper , Wally Grout , refusing to run out a batsman after a collision with a fielder. Think he did so more than once actually. Times have changed , I guess.

As I say , it isn't black and white. Just , to me at least , it seems more than a bit underhanded to claim a wicket due to the technicality of a batsman having left his ground fractionally before an umpire has called over to make the ball officially dead. Notably as he had very obviously no intention of looking to run but clearly regarded action as having ceased. Bit like a football player scoring quickly from a throw in after his opponents have put the ball out due to a player injury ? Legal - but not going to be well regarded...

Guess it is up to the individual.

[GarlicJam]

I have found it all quite bemusing the hooha over this incident. Here, team management, and on social (bloody hell!) media.

Fans of England here suggesting Cummins should have withdrawn his appeal - why, after Bairstow tried, unsuccessfully, the exact some thing two days earlier. Why on earth would Cummins think that was a good idea?
Guilt-trips don't belong in The Ashes.

As for both Stokes,and McCullum - stunning hypocrisy. Are they trying to hide their team's failures (maybe), or their own failures (doubtful) - or just to create ill-feeling and tension before Headingly (probably).
Whatever, it is sanctimonious hypocrisy - and something I will never forget. Both have history of doing exactly what that have criticised.

Social media - Hoo, Boy!! It has been enlightening, and fun, but I now feel a lot dumber for wallowing in that for a while.

[Slipstream]

I have found it all quite bemusing the hooha over this incident. Here, team management, and on social (bloody hell!) media.

Fans of England here suggesting Cummins should have withdrawn his appeal - why, after Bairstow tried, unsuccessfully, the exact some thing two days earlier. Why on earth would Cummins think that was a good idea?
Guilt-trips don't belong in The Ashes.

As for both Stokes,and McCullum - stunning hypocrisy. Are they trying to hide their team's failures (maybe), or their own failures (doubtful) - or just to create ill-feeling and tension before Headingly (probably).
Whatever, it is sanctimonious hypocrisy - and something I will never forget. Both have history of doing exactly what that have criticised.

Social media - Hoo, Boy!! It has been enlightening, and fun, but I now feel a lot dumber for wallowing in that for a while.

McCullum apologised to Murali and Sangakkara for that in the Spirit of Cricket lecture.
https://wisden.com/stories/watch-the-20 ... alex-carey

[GarlicJam]

Slip Stream - yes, I watched that. I thought it sounded very trite and insincere.

Not that that matters, anyway. He did it, and then goes and has the gall to vilify someone for similar. Not to mention that he did it THREE times. Collingwood (which Vettori rescinded) and a Zim player.

There has been a heck of a lot of hypocrisy flying around these past 24 hours, but I have found McCullum's (and Stokes', to a lesser degree) to be the most galling.

[alfie]

I have found it all quite bemusing the hooha over this incident. Here, team management, and on social (bloody hell!) media.

Fans of England here suggesting Cummins should have withdrawn his appeal - why, after Bairstow tried, unsuccessfully, the exact some thing two days earlier. Why on earth would Cummins think that was a good idea?
Guilt-trips don't belong in The Ashes.

As for both Stokes,and McCullum - stunning hypocrisy. Are they trying to hide their team's failures (maybe), or their own failures (doubtful) - or just to create ill-feeling and tension before Headingly (probably).
Whatever, it is sanctimonious hypocrisy - and something I will never forget. Both have history of doing exactly what that have criticised.

Social media - Hoo, Boy!! It has been enlightening, and fun, but I now feel a lot dumber for wallowing in that for a while.

Well I may be wrong but I do not recall Bairstow trying "the exact same thing" . I did see him shy at the stumps ; but pretty sure it was when the batsman had advanced out of his crease in playing or leaving the ball. That is very different and I'd have no problem with it.
Also do not recall Stokes having "history" in this ?

I will move on from this as obviously we have a different idea of fair and unfair play. But I would have the same view with boot on other foot so do not think there is any hypocrisy involved.

[sussexpob]

There has been a heck of a lot of hypocrisy flying around these past 24 hours, but I have found McCullum's (and Stokes', to a lesser degree) to be the most galling.

I think this comes back to the comments from the first test, about believing their own hype. One gets the sense that Stokes and Bazza feel like there is something superior in the brand of cricket they play, and I guess they extended that to include some form of moral exceptionalism. Of course, the reality is that neither side can really claim any high ground here - our cricketing histories of littered with examples of dim behaviour, so listing them tit for tat is of little interest.

oh and... surely Broad having a mouth at Carey wins the title of most galling?

[yuppie]

I am confused as to why this is an issue. Bairstow would not have done the same thing if Lyon had bowled the ball, or if any other spinner had bowled the ball. Because he did it when a pace bowler did it makes the end result the same. He was stumped and there is nothing controversial about it. Just because Bairstow thought the ball was dead is ridiculous. Carey threw it straight away. Would Bairstow have said no to byes if Carey missed the ball when collecting because he thought the ball was dead? Stay there Ben, i though it was over. No he would not. The first thing as a kid most players learn is not to leave the crease unless its safe to do so. Bairstow did not hear the umpire say over.

The only person at fault here is Bairstow. A rookie error from a test keeper. I know no one who plays the game regularly who is blaming anyone else. Its all on Bairstow. Ive seen this at club level as have many other cricketers. The view is why did you leave the crease? Perhaps in the future we should take a note from Broads book and ask if what the players are doing is in the spirit of the game? Englands response about the spirit of the game has been confusing. Can they tell us supporters what they mean? Was Broads actions after the stumping in the spirit of the game? Was Ollie Robinsons actions in the first test and subsequent news articles in the spirit of the game? AS has been mentioned there are multiple examples of current and past players in the English set up whose actions might not be considered in the spirit of the game. But not knowing what that spirit is, perhaps these actions were in the spirit of the game. Its just very confusing for us supporters to know what is right and what is not. Perhaps we should just follow the rules and consider those the spirit of the game?

Then to finish this rant i am really shocked at the MCC members response to the Australian players in the Long room. Disgraceful scenes from supposedly the keepers of cricket. Obviously not understanding their own rules they acted like a baying mob. One week after the shame of the Equity in Cricket report to see MCC members act that way has pretty much summed up the problem with cricket in England. The back pages are full of cheating Aussies for a legal stumping and the Equity in Cricket report is no longer being mentioned. The fact Uzman was calling out the abuse probably best summarise the issues in English cricket.

[sussexpob]

One week after the shame of the Equity in Cricket report to see MCC members act that way has pret much summed up the problem with cricket in England.

Nah, as if a almost entirely upper class, male, white play group for rich people would ever have problems with class, racism or sexism

I was really disappointed that the steward held Wee Davey back.... would have been so much better if Wee Davey and a few Aussie players just waded in and knocked out a few intolerable toffs.

[bigfluffylemon]

Now the PM weighs in too, while the Australian press are full of examples of English 'hypocrisy' when they've apparently done something similar (never mind that most of the alleged examples are legitimate stumpings where a batsman is out of his ground having overbalanced or whatever playing a shot, not where the batsman has falsely thought the ball was dead and left his crease after grounding). What a load of nonsense on both sides.

As I said above, I can only believe that this is deliberate manufactured outrage now.

England bloody well better walk the walk at Headingley. They were giving it the verbals last week as well while Australia just shut up (for once) and played. Who came out better?

[Slipstream]

Slip Stream - yes, I watched that. I thought it sounded very trite and insincere.

Not that that matters, anyway. He did it, and then goes and has the gall to vilify someone for similar. Not to mention that he did it THREE times. Collingwood (which Vettori rescinded) and a Zim player.

There has been a heck of a lot of hypocrisy flying around these past 24 hours, but I have found McCullum's (and Stokes', to a lesser degree) to be the most galling.

I have heard Bairstow has previous with this at Yorkshire, being out of his crease. I think it was dozy and had it not happened we could have won needing only 43 runs. Like Stokes declaration in the 1st Test. Stupid.

[alfie]

Oh dear . I probably shouldn't go on with this one. But I have to take issue with a couple of comments above.

Yes there has been some overdone - and arguably hypocritical - stuff spouted over this. But it has come from both sides.

The Lord's Members were bang out of order. Didn't expect them to be happy about it ; but a frosty silence would have been more appropriate in the circumstances. Do wonder , though , what would have been the reaction of a crowd at the Gabba if an England team had pulled a similar trick... But absolutely doesn't make that conduct right.

Yuppie is suggesting "any regular player" would see no problem with it . Bit sweeping , eh ? I've played for over fifty years and I would neither accept it from one of my team nor approve of it from another. Others may well differ and that's fair enough. But let's not pretend there is a black and white answer, please.

Seeing a lot of claims in the press here that England had tried the same trick the other day. Cummins even made remarks along those lines : but it simply isn't true. The keeper throwing the ball to try and stump a batsman who has moved out of his crease to play the ball - or think about a run - is perfectly normal , sure. But tossing it at the stumps of a player who has not left his crease in the hopes that he will step out before the umpire calls over is completely different. It was clever - as the batsman wasn't ! It was considered ; because they had noted Bairstow's tendency to stroll off a bit too promptly at the end of an over . And it was perfectly legal. But it is obvious from the letters I see in this morning's newspapers that many Australians didn't like it either. I think opinions either way are not unreasonable...and down to one's individual belief in what constitutes fair play.

Cummins would have won my respect - if not my agreement - had he owned it in his interview. Something along the lines of "Yeah we saw an opportunity and took it. Reckon it was fair enough. Acknowledge some people might think it a bit shady but hey we aren't playing social cricket here". But he didn't. He said he thought it was fine but then made the false claim that England had done the "same thing" . Why , I wonder ? Trying to deflect criticism ? If he really sees no difference between normal stumping/run out attempts and Carey's crafty bit of work I think he needs spectacles.

Anyway I would just like to make the point that my objection to this business is not from any grievance as an England supporter. I thought before the incident that Australia would win and I actually believe that by energising Stokes and Broad it very nearly cost them the game. Obviously disappointed to lose a wicket in that manner but I can accept it even if I don't approve.

No , my angst is with my Australian resident hat on . Rightly or wrongly , this incident will , in the eyes of many , be filed in with underarm bowling , sandpaper , overdone sledging etc as proof that Australians are not very good sports. Which I do not think is fair but is a widely held view both here and in other places. And at a time when the behaviour of this present group of players , under Cummins , had done so much to bring respect and affection back from many who had rather lost it. And I think that is a real pity.