3rd Ashes Test England v Australia July 6-10 1930hrs @ Headingley

[The Cryptkeeper]

Just saw the Bairstow incident.

Another dog act by our national cricket team, with its long history of dog acts.

Wind your neck in.

Bairstow tried it and failed a couple of days earlier.

Also, there's a rule book that sides with the Australians.

 

[Woody15]

No they are not.

Which facet of the laws in particular are you referring to here?

If its the dead ball laws, they're very clear.

 

[4flagsin5yrs]

No they are not.

Bairstow screwed up.

Disappointing for a senior test cricketer.

It's as simple as that.

 

[kickazz]

I have big? on Green technically

How so? I dare say you are a better judge than me on these things so I'm keen to know.

My observation is that he has often had chanceless innings until the inevitable brain fart comes. Not too much play+miss and that sort of thing.

 

[Linda Lovelace]

Normal for all keepers to try. Tried often. Carey was brilliant.

Not Found | Fox Sports Videos

www.foxsports.com.au

It's been a problem for a while, yes. There's a nuance to this debate that covers some issues with the rules themselves.

Then there is also the issue of whether we, of all teams, should be ignoring perceived conventions of sportsmanship when we have damaged our reputation in the past because of doing so, such as underarm bowling.

But trying to have a serious conversation about such nuances in this parochial environment would be impossible.

So instead I thought it would be more fun to just call our own team a bunch of dogs and see if I could get a bunch of nuffies riled up.

 

[Lingsface]

Wind your neck in.

Bairstow tried it and failed a couple fo days earlier.

Also, there's a rule book that sides with the Australians.

Any footage of this?

 

[kickazz]

The only thing even sweeter now is the fact a 5-0 whitewash on English soil is still alive.

The caption has the words "says" and "would" - very on brand for McCullum's team this Ashes.

 

[wce4premiership]

Australia played quite poorly after the Bairstow dismissal, yet they still won.

Stokes played brilliantly, but was also given lives and had deliveries right where he wanted them, which isn't on him but the fact remains.

The English, with all of the best batting conditions, winning the toss in both games and having the Aussies play quite poorly at times have still lost both tests. Not to say the English haven't also played some brain dead cricket, with their own attack of the short ball being questioned as well as the declaration.

I think the Aussies are comfortably better, but the English are actually doing better playing aggressively than they would otherwise play. I can see them winning a test in this series, but they just aren't as good.

Have had the majority of the luck so far and still not won.

 

[The Casey Cat]

No they are not.

Yea they are. You just like to interpret them in any way that enables you to rubbish this Aussie team.

 

[Tugga27]

It's been a problem for a while, yes. There's a nuance to this debate that covers some issues with the rules themselves.

Then there is also the issue of whether we, of all teams, should be ignoring perceived conventions of sportsmanship when we have damaged our reputation in the past because of doing so, such as underarm bowling.

But trying to have a serious conversation about such nuances in this parochial environment would be impossible.

So instead I thought it would be more fun to just call our own team a bunch of dogs and see if I could get a bunch of nuffies riled up.

You were talking about the rules being unclear, now you're going off on a tangent about sportmanship.

This is from the Australian.
Like I said, crystal clear.

" Let’s get this out of the way first. Cricket has some vague statutes. Law 20.1.2 is not one of them. Indeed, it could hardly be more explicit: “The ball shall be considered to be dead when it is clear to the bowler’s end umpire that the fielding side and both batters at the wicket have ceased to regard it as in play.”

So dead ball reflects a view unanimous among players that conveys itself to the umpire. And, errr, that’s it. Jonny Bairstow’s view yesterday that he was temporarily invulnerable to dismissal was clearly not shared, by his opponents, or the umpires. No, he was not taking a run. That is why he was stumped. I’m glad we had this little chat".

 

[Tugga27]

Any footage of this?

Go back and have a look.
It's been showed several times.

 

[Colonial]

Of course it was a fully legal act. But it was a poor act that took advantage of the silly way cricket rules are constructed and went against conventions of behaviour. Just like the underarm ball.

Cricket needs to re-write the rules to dispense with any controversy over incidents like this. But until that happens, it was a sh*t thing to do.

After we were actual cheating dogs with sandpaper, and remain lying cheating dogs on top of that cough 'bowlers were unaware' cough we shouldn't have pulled a stunt like this.

So the Poms shouldn’t have attempted, and failed, two days ago the exact same thing?

Stay in your crease till the ball is dead. The ranger was in his own world and deserved what he got.

 

[Sphynx]

They have woken up and the tears are still well and truly running.

Just inject it into my veins:

 

[Colonial]

It's been a problem for a while, yes. There's a nuance to this debate that covers some issues with the rules themselves.

Then there is also the issue of whether we, of all teams, should be ignoring perceived conventions of sportsmanship when we have damaged our reputation in the past because of doing so, such as underarm bowling.

But trying to have a serious conversation about such nuances in this parochial environment would be impossible.

So instead I thought it would be more fun to just call our own team a bunch of dogs and see if I could get a bunch of nuffies riled up.

Only nuffie here is you Linda. Proven by multiple posts.

 

[Pistol Night]

They have woken up and the tears are still well and truly running.

Just inject it into my veins:




View attachment 1728141


View attachment 1728143


View attachment 1728144

At least our captain is Australian. Those knobs had to recruit a sheep shagger

 

[MatthewB]

Any footage of this?

 

[Lingsface]

Haha what a joke can’t believe he tried this in the same test and had a cry, he should remember that as well as he didn’t let it go for byes like usual.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

Any footage of this?

Plenty. I'm not doing your research for you.

 

[Alfonz]

Surely a juice greentop will be prepared. The Poms don't have the attack to win on a flat deck.
I will be very surprised if it is not a greentop.

I will be surprised if it is a greentop. I think it's their best chance, but they are so far gone in the cult of Bazball that I think they will continue to offer up flat roads. I reckon after bouncing us out cheaply in the 2nd innings and Stokes smashing our short pitched bowling, they will think the same kind of pitch and more bouncers (with Wood as well) will do the trick.

 

[The Casey Cat]

Plenty. I'm not doing your research for you.

Unlikely to be interested in it anyway. Doesn't suit his ignorant, nonsense point of view.

 

[Colonial]

 

[BLUEALLTHRU]

Report: Have A Sook You Bloated Old Pommie *head​

ERROL PARKER | Editor-at-large | Contact

A report commissioned by the nation’s peak scientific body has found that the bloated old Pommie heads in the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) that abused members of the Australian cricket team in their fancy room can have a ****** sook.

Earlier this morning local time, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) published the short study which has since been ironically criticised by the MCC as being “classless”.

Speaking to The Advocate today, Professor Glen Rutman from the CSIRO explained that Alex Carey did nothing wrong and poor man’s James Graham needs to learn to ground his bat before he goes for a stroll up the wicket.

“Those old Poms in the long room at Lords, where do I even start,” he said.

“Imagine getting abused by some red-faced old goon that’s one big sneeze away from a stroke. They can go have a sook. It’s not like England are the moral high ground when it comes to everything. Stuart Broad embraces being called a cheat. If anyone on that team has earned the right to sling mud, it’s that Ben Stokes. He just said it wasn’t on but who cares,”

“He’s a Kiwi Gemini. He is a sook but he’s a tough sook. Mate, the Poms can learn a thing or two from Big Ben. Without him, they’d just be a Tongue and a Root.”

The Advocate reached out to the MCC for comment but they’re sleeping.

More to come.

 

[philreich]

Leeds weather forecast looks a bit wet.

Damn - what a shame. Five days of rain would result in Australia retaining the little urn .

 

[Linda Lovelace]

Which facet of the laws in particular are you referring to here?

If its the dead ball laws, they're very clear.

No they are not. They are incredibly dumb.

In the rules, the only definition of a finally settled ball is that it is whatever the umpire says is a finally settled ball. That's it. Purely subjective by the ump.

But the rules also state that whether or not the umpire perceives a dead ball also depends on him perceiving that both teams have indicated that they no longer consider the ball to be in play. So they in fact actually do decide between them what consitutes a dead ball prior to the umpire. And then whether the ump actually signals a dead ball is left optional.

That's why the idea of sporting conventions exist around this rule as written - because it's stupid. It requires three inter-subjective perceptions from three parties where each determines whether the ball is or isn't in play.

And it leads to this exact clusterf*ck of a situation.

 

[kickthething]

The only thing even sweeter now is the fact a 5-0 whitewash on English soil is still alive.

Macullum is probably an aperol spritz kind of guy