Opinion NMFC Board Cricket ThreadII - Windies, Big Bash, Pakistan.

[koshari]

The problem with this comment is when you belive it is over you do leave the crease. 100 per cent this is what he believed. No way was he doing anything else. He marked the crease with his foot beforehand and looked down before going up the pitch to speak to Stokes. Common sense tells everyone it was a blunder but not one worthy of being given out for. Sportsmanship has to be there otherwise its not a game anymore

what a load of baloney, so by that logic if i take a swinger in golf its a mulligan because everyone believed it was my intention to hit the ball?

And on another point heres the problem with common sense, there is no such thing, what is perceived as common sense is that for people experienced with a particular subject some actions are plainly foolish, but this isnt the case to someone inexperienced in the subject, regardless of how commonplace it is, go to asia were they have pretty relaxed industrial standards and you will see people wearing sandels, flipflops or even bare feet in industrial scenarios yet westerners would state they have no common sense. , its not common sense that tells everyone it was a blunder, its the resultant umpires decision that confirms it was a blunder.

One of the greatest challenges in test cricket is the requirement that players need to concentrate for long periods without being distracted, continually walking out of your crease isn't concentrating, its stupidity and even his english peers concede this, and the fact he did it on so many occasions that it convinced the keeper to take a shy at the stumps confims it wasnt an isolated case.

 

[Roostorm]

Hmmm maybe this could be forwarded to those upperty crust bludgers in the long room.

 

[Twinkletoes]

None of that is relevant. He wasn't trying to run - nobody thinks that he was. It is also irrelevant that he thought the ball wasn't in play as that is also made clear in the rules - it is in play until both teams consider than it isn't. Where he thought the ball was or wasn't doesn't matter - the fact is, when he scratched the ground the ball was in motion towards the stumps. It was in play as Carey didn't hold it. Jonny then stepped out of the crease and the ball hit the stumps. The ball was in play the whole time but Bairstow himself didn't know that because he wasn't watching it. And that is why he was out.

Yep. Case for the defence dismissed!

He was lacking concentration that whole over, allowing balls through to the keeper, not even looking to see it in the keeper’s gloves, then wandering about in lala land.

He invited it and Carey duly accepted the invitation.

As he lies in bed at night he will know he stuffed up, ole Jonny.

Agreed, as l said l had a chuckle…..completely over the top….this however is a brilliant take on the game.

Vaughan summed it up perfectly.

 

[kaboom kid]

Yep. Case for the defence dismissed!

He was lacking concentration that whole over, allowing balls through to the keeper, not even looking to see it in the keeper’s gloves, then wandering about in lala land.

He invited it and Carey duly accepted the invitation.

As he lies in bed at night he will know he stuffed up, ole Jonny.



Vaughan summed it up perfectly.

Exactly. Don't whine about the 'Spirit of Cricket' because you got dismissed due to being a space cadet. Fair game and just desserts. England have taken us too lightly. To much booze and golf and not enough practice.

 

[KiwiRoo]

Furphy. No-one who is stumped is trying to take a run. Their job is to stay grounded behind the crease until the ball is dead, and not leave their ground until then, or the wicket keeper can take the bails off and get them out. The fact the wicket keeper is further away than usual for stumpings doesn’t change the rule.

Oh and the third umpire did deal with it. By enforcing the rule.

The difference is that the batsmen can leave his crease to make things to his advantage by getting to the ball on the full or half volley. If the bowler defeats him in the air or with turn and the batsmen is stumped then obviously that is totally in the spirit of the laws as its a competition between bat and ball.
Its the same if a batsmen bats out of his crease. He is trying to get an advantage.

Bairstow wasn't attempting a run or to get any advantage

That's the difference to me

 

[Rooboys Rool]

Gotta say, these melts about the “spirit of the game“ in this “controversy” are hilarious. I don’t see it as controversial at all. It’s just plain and simple out. What Carey did is attempted frequently. Watching it live I thought “WTF is he (Bairstow) doing?” If an Aussie batsman did the same I would think the same and wouldn’t be spouting some nonsense about the “spirit of the game”. We all know that if the roles were reversed this pious bs from the Poms would be nowhere to be seen.

 

[Gasometer]

The difference is that the batsmen can leave his crease to make things to his advantage by getting to the ball on the full or half volley. If the bowler defeats him in the air or with turn and the batsmen is stumped then obviously that is totally in the spirit of the laws as its a competition between bat and ball.
Its the same if a batsmen bats out of his crease. He is trying to get an advantage.

Bairstow wasn't attempting a run or to get any advantage

That's the difference to me

How’s Carey to know his intention?

At that stage of the game every run was critical in that run chase.

 

[see see]

The elephant in the room (pun intended) that the English press is not addressing is whether Bairstow should be in the team at all. He certainly shouldn't be picked as 'keeper as he's not physically fit enough to maintain the concentration required to spend long stints behind the stumps. His poor glove work has been a big contributing factor to both of their losses.

With all this concocted outrage and controversy heading into the next test, it's difficult to see them dropping him even though his form probably warrants it. Good result for Australia.

 

[Colby Cheer Squad]

The difference is that the batsmen can leave his crease to make things to his advantage by getting to the ball on the full or half volley. If the bowler defeats him in the air or with turn and the batsmen is stumped then obviously that is totally in the spirit of the laws as its a competition between bat and ball.
Its the same if a batsmen bats out of his crease. He is trying to get an advantage.

Bairstow wasn't attempting a run or to get any advantage

That's the difference to me

Let's consider every other ball when Bairstow left his crease before checking that the ball was dead. He was gardening. Prodding and flattening the pitch TO GAIN AN ADVANTAGE. And on this occasion when he left his crease, he would most certainly have intended to prod and flatten the pitch again as well as talk and strategise with his captain TO GAIN AN ADVANTAGE. The not gaining advantage argument is pretty subjective, really.

 

[KiwiRoo]

Let's consider every other ball when Bairstow left his crease before checking that the ball was dead. He was gardening. Prodding and flattening the pitch TO GAIN AN ADVANTAGE. And on this occasion when he left his crease, he would most certainly have intended to prod and flatten the pitch again as well as talk and strategise with his captain TO GAIN AN ADVANTAGE. The not gaining advantage argument is pretty subjective, really.

ok ..thats sort of stretching things a fair bit

I was just trying to say a normal stumping is as a result of competition between bat and ball.
The Bairstow one wasn't

Anyway don't think anyone here is saying Bairstow wasnt out and I'm not blaming Carey, or other posters for saying its out and get on with it

But to me (and some other posters on here by the look of it) it just sort of doesn't pass the sniff test on how I like cricket to be played.

 

[roo blitz]

what a load of baloney, so by that logic if i take a swinger in golf its a mulligan because everyone believed it was my intention to hit the ball?

And on another point heres the problem with common sense, there is no such thing, what is perceived as common sense is that for people experienced with a particular subject some actions are plainly foolish, but this isnt the case to someone inexperienced in the subject, regardless of how commonplace it is, go to asia were they have pretty relaxed industrial standards and you will see people wearing sandels, flipflops or even bare feet in industrial scenarios yet westerners would state they have no common sense. , its not common sense that tells everyone it was a blunder, its the resultant umpires decision that confirms it was a blunder.

One of the greatest challenges in test cricket is the requirement that players need to concentrate for long periods without being distracted, continually walking out of your crease isn't concentrating, its stupidity and even his english peers concede this, and the fact he did it on so many occasions that it convinced the keeper to take a shy at the stumps confims it wasnt an isolated case.

Its this win at all cost mentality that you have as well. Obviously sportsmanship is irrelevant to you but I guess thats the same attitude the Australians play their cricket with so it does explain things.

 

[Samsquanch]

Its this win at all cost mentality that you have as well. Obviously sportsmanship is irrelevant to you but I guess thats the same attitude the Australians play their cricket with so it does explain things.

It isn't tiddlywinks.

 

[roo blitz]

The elephant in the room (pun intended) that the English press is not addressing is whether Bairstow should be in the team at all. He certainly shouldn't be picked as 'keeper as he's not physically fit enough to maintain the concentration required to spend long stints behind the stumps. His poor glove work has been a big contributing factor to both of their losses.

With all this concocted outrage and controversy heading into the next test, it's difficult to see them dropping him even though his form probably warrants it. Good result for Australia.

Bairstow been out with a broken leg for 6 months and played a decent knock in the 1st test and probably could well have helped win the 2nd test if not for that crazy dismissal. Last year he was clearly the best batsman in the world before his injury with 6 test hundreds probably winning 4 tests off his own bat at a level of batting that has probably never been witnessed before.. Yes his keeping is scratchy at best but it always has been a bit that way. No worse than Carey though so far in their wicket keeping careers. For what its worth I would play Bairstow as a batsmen and bring in the widely accepted best keeper in the world Foakes for the injured Popes as he is a decent bat as well. Problem is outside of Australia cricket alot of people commentating dont know much about the other teams and what goes on unless they are true cricket followers. Even our media say some ignorant things when referring to other teams.

 

[roo blitz]

How’s Carey to know his intention?

At that stage of the game every run was critical in that run chase.

Carey maybe didnt fully know his intention but whilst the review was going on it was clear it was not within the spirit of the game and thats when the appeal should have been overturned. As I said in an earlier post old style umpires like Dicky bird would have said "Nah lads, thats not out, come on lets get on with the game. And to be honest I think both teams would have accepted that especially in hindsight

 

[big_e]

What a night, hey?

Not the first time I'd been up late arguing with Jesus....

 

[roo blitz]

Bairstow was dopey to leave his crease before the over was called, Carey did throw it at the stumps all in one motion (not sneakily wait) & the laws of the game clearly state it is out, but…
I don’t like the look of it. I didn’t when I was watching it live & still don’t now.

None of the videos posted to try & prove the British hypocrisy are even remotely similar to what happened in this instance.
I’m still glad it happened though, cause it might have been the difference in us winning or losing the match.
Also, the overreaction from the UK media & public is priceless!
Bring on Thursday night! It’s gonna be a fiery one!
Hopefully they dish up a decent pitch with some pace & bounce

Overreaction from the British media . Wow have you seen our Aussie papers take on it. Pretty embarrassing I would have thought in their bias

 

[roo blitz]

All this whining about the spirit of the game is just a convenient sideshow for the English Team and just diverts tabloid attention from their own underperformance and the recent report on the inequality that permeates the English game. However that will be temporary IMO. It won't be long before the blowtorch is applied with earnest. They eat their own like few other media.

I dont think the poms are under performing. With a bit of luck they could easily be 2-0 up and had a fit Archer being playing along with Wood I think it could well be. I guess though you can only perform with who is on the pitch but make no mistake there is very little between the teams and I think the Aussies are really concerned about the English side and what they can do with a bit more nous with bazball and thats why they did what they did to Bairstow and didnt overturn their appeal. They knew the dangers of a Bairstow and Stokes partnership. I think the poms could well have won without the Bairstow dismissal. Stokes had them rattled yet again. I dont think there has ever been a cricketer that puts the fear in opposition teams like him , even the great Viv Richards

 

[roo blitz]

The umpire clearly doesn't agree with you regarding the ball being dead as they gave Bairstow out. Respecting the umpires decision is an important part of the 'Spirit of the Game'

I think if the umpires had their time again they probably would have overturned the decision or insisted the Aussies should. Hindsight is a wonderful thing though. I would love to hear the umpires honest opinion on it now although they probably would go into damage control to protect their integrity

 

[Mav]

I dont think the poms are under performing. With a bit of luck they could easily be 2-0 up and had a fit Archer being playing along with Wood I think it could well be. I guess though you can only perform with who is on the pitch but make no mistake there is very little between the teams and I think the Aussies are really concerned about the English side and what they can do with a bit more nous with bazball and thats why they did what they did to Bairstow and didnt overturn their appeal. They knew the dangers of a Bairstow and Stokes partnership. I think the poms could well have won without the Bairstow dismissal. Stokes had them rattled yet again. I dont think there has ever been a cricketer that puts the fear in opposition teams like him , even the great Viv Richards

Yeah, 12 hundreds in 168 innings with a strike rate of 58. Frighfull. He won what, 1 or 2 tests for you guys and now he's the most feared batsman ever. Your bias is there for all to see.

He's a slapper that can hit out on dead pitches and that's it.

 

[roo blitz]

Hmmm maybe this could be forwarded to those upperty crust bludgers in the long room.

Ashwin is hardly Mr Sportsman of the year type of guy with his on field tactics

 

[roo blitz]

Yeah, 12 hundreds in 168 innings with a strike rate of 58. Frighfull. He won what, 1 or 2 tests for you guys and now he's the most feared batsman ever. Your bias is there for all to see.

He's a slapper that can hit out on dead pitches and that's it.

Averages dont always tell the full story, you should know that. Its the ability to play match winning innings something Stokes has done time and time again. Botham, Gilchrist and othe similar players did the same but they never had the best averages so you miss the point entirely. Tell me which batsmen in current cricket would you least want to be in a situation that Stokes has been in chasing a total down. There would not be many. You telling me the current Aussies dont know this.

 

[krakouers]

I dont think the poms are under performing. With a bit of luck they could easily be 2-0 up and had a fit Archer being playing along with Wood I think it could well be. I guess though you can only perform with who is on the pitch but make no mistake there is very little between the teams and I think the Aussies are really concerned about the English side and what they can do with a bit more nous with bazball and thats why they did what they did to Bairstow and didnt overturn their appeal. They knew the dangers of a Bairstow and Stokes partnership. I think the poms could well have won without the Bairstow dismissal. Stokes had them rattled yet again. I dont think there has ever been a cricketer that puts the fear in opposition teams like him , even the great Viv Richards

Stokes is the most dangerous player England have..
It’s always critical to get him as cheaply as you can… that second innings showed exactly why

 

[krakouers]

What a night, hey?

Not the first time I'd been up late arguing with Jesus....

It’s not the arguing with The Jesus that’s the bad thing…
It’s when he mentions about turning the other cheek and pulls down his pants…

 

[SpiderBurton22]

I dont think the poms are under performing. With a bit of luck they could easily be 2-0 up and had a fit Archer being playing along with Wood I think it could well be. I guess though you can only perform with who is on the pitch but make no mistake there is very little between the teams and I think the Aussies are really concerned about the English side and what they can do with a bit more nous with bazball and thats why they did what they did to Bairstow and didnt overturn their appeal. They knew the dangers of a Bairstow and Stokes partnership. I think the poms could well have won without the Bairstow dismissal. Stokes had them rattled yet again. I dont think there has ever been a cricketer that puts the fear in opposition teams like him , even the great Viv Richards

Meh, Archer will never play Test cricket again. Wood would have been handy but the Poms have doctored their pitches to suit their BaZbALl style which would have negated him.

Why would they do that you ask?

Because they know deep down their stryle of cricket relies on bullying mediocre attacks on dead lifeless wickets and that their batsmen would have no hope against the Aussies attack.

Which is stupid because it has played into our hands because Uzzy, Warner and Head, 3 blokes that have never looked like making runs over a long period of time in English conditions suddenly are comfortable and leading the way for us.

 

[toepoker]

Stokes is not fit to tie Adam Gilchrist's bootlaces. Not in the same stratosphere.