Big Cricket Thread

[Seadog]

"F*&K off you f*#king prick" is not worthy of an apology or even a word in Robinson's shell like by his captain “I won’t be having a word with him to rein it in because you don’t want to take something out of a player that gets the best out of them."

Stokes on the Lords members. As for the behaviour of the Long Room and the Lord’s crowd in general? More of this please. “It was nice to see Lord’s, a ground that’s not got a reputation for the atmosphere and noise, today was one of the days where Lord’s showed up”

Sanctimonious hypocritical twats.

 

[kane249]

 

[happy_eagle]

Depends if you agree with the action though.

If we'd been caught applying lollies to the ball, I'd agree with this point.

But that's not what happened.

Still not seeing a lot of defence around the situation itself, apart from the fact it wasn't illegal.
Just more "yeh but look what England have done though" which is no defence.

 

[Balls In]

Not a fan of the dismissal personally but absolutely loving the Poms reaction. Bunch of arrogant, hypocritical twats. Australia should end their tradition by refusing to walk through that long room in future. See how that goes MCC.

 

[kane249]

Still not seeing a lot of defence around the situation itself, apart from the fact it wasn't illegal.
Just more "yeh but look what England have done though" which is no defence.

-Carey threw the ball straight away after he caught it, there was no delay so it was still in play. Ball only becomes dead once both playing teams deem it to being so, per the rules.


-Umpire hadn't called over
-Bairstow just assumed it was a dead ball and switched off by going wandering before he had an umpire confirmation

Those are the facts, what's there to defend? This only has become an issue because Bairstow took things way too casual

As the sporting saying goes, "play to the whistle"

 

[Astro7]

Brilliant! Says it all...Coach Bazball has done the same thing as a cricketer apparently.
And UK PM weighs in supporting Stokes comments 'unsporting' - looking for votes!
And constant raucous booing by the crowd...hope the Aussie crowds give them and balmy army HELL
when they come here...or are we better than that?

 

[Farang83150]

Not a fan of the dismissal personally but absolutely loving the Poms reaction. Bunch of arrogant, hypocritical twats. Australia should end their tradition by refusing to walk through that long room in future. See how that goes MCC.

I'd love them to do that, would be a laugh, they'd be so bent out of shape and their media would go into melt down.

 

[Tugga27]

Still not seeing a lot of defence around the situation itself, apart from the fact it wasn't illegal.
Just more "yeh but look what England have done though" which is no defence.

That's because you don't have to defend it.

About 6 English test ex-captains have come out and said they saw nothing wrong with it.

You obviously do.
I don't.

 

[happy_eagle]

-Carey threw the ball straight away after he caught it, there was no delay so it was still in play. Ball only becomes dead once both playing teams deem it to being so, per the rules.
View attachment 1728930

-Umpire hadn't called over
-Bairstow just assumed it was a dead ball and switched off by going wandering before he had an umpire confirmation

Those are the facts, what's there to defend? This only has become an issue because Bairstow took things way too casual

As the sporting saying goes, "play to the whistle"

Thats defending whether it was legal or not. It was clearly within the rules.

What I haven't seen defended is whether or not it was ethical (or within the spirit of the game). When that argument comes up is when people jump up and down and go "yeh but look at what England have done"

 

[Bender_]

Thats defending whether it was legal or not. It was clearly within the rules.

What I haven't seen defended is whether or not it was ethical (or within the spirit of the game). When that argument comes up is when people jump up and down and go "yeh but look at what England have done"

You don't think rules replace ethics in sport?

 

[happy_eagle]

You don't think rules replace ethics in sport?

Two separate things.

Things can be legal but unethical. And I'd put the Bairstow dismissal as that. Same with Mankad.

 

[Bender_]

Two separate things.

Things can be legal but unethical. And I'd put the Bairstow dismissal as that. Same with Mankad.

Sure legal vs ethical is an issue in day to day life, but I don't believe it is in sport - either it's within the rules or it isn't. It's a competition, you take every millimetre you can.

I know you're not going to change your mind on this, but you and other posters are at a agree to disagree point honestly.

 

[Bender_]

Just purely for example:



Got lazy, got out. No ethics, it's just the rule. Much like Bairstow.

 

[kane249]

Thats defending whether it was legal or not. It was clearly within the rules.

What I haven't seen defended is whether or not it was ethical (or within the spirit of the game). When that argument comes up is when people jump up and down and go "yeh but look at what England have done"

Ethical is a made up term here along with spirit of the game.

It's a professional sporting environment.

One sportsman was lazy and switched off when he shouldn't have, the other one kept playing.

As I said you play to the whistle, not until one player arbitrarily decides its over.

Ethics is only gotten trotted out here as an excuse to cover for Bairtstow's brain fart.

The whataboitism is getting trotted out to highlight the English/McCullum hypocrisy, under the same circumstances they are perfectly fine to employ the same tactic and bin Ethics/spirit of the game as it suits.

 

[Ishmael_]

Honestly I'm so sick of this 'spirit of the game' stuff, full stop.

The Mankad, Bairstow's dismissal etc etc, the outrage is ridiculous. This isn't under 8s. This is elite level sport. If you're a lazy player in every other sport you will be found out.

Whenever these things come up, it's always by the losers and almost always related to the batsman being 'hard done by'.

And it all streams from a history of the batsman being gentleman and the bowlers being the lower classes roped into bowling at them. How dare they get the gentleman batsman out, outrageous!

If the 'spirit of the game' actually existed, rule number one would be showing the opposition respect. Bairstow didn't and he got out.

Of all people, I'm sure Bairstow gets it.

 

[happy_eagle]

Ethical is a made up term here along with spirit of the game.

It's a professional sporting environment.

One sportsman was lazy and switched off when he shouldn't have, the other one kept playing.

As I said you play to the whistle, not until one player arbitrarily decides its over.

Ethics is only gotten trotted out here as an excuse to cover for Bairtstow's brain fart.

The whataboitism is getting trotted out to highlight the English/McCullum hypocrisy, under the same circumstances they are perfectly fine to employ the same tactic and bin Ethics/spirit of the game as it suits.

Fair enough

Do you feel the same way about Mankad and the underarm ball, both of which are/were perfectly legal.

 

[Forward Press]

Think something that also gets a bit lost is that Bairstow tried the exact same thing in the same Test just two days before.

If Bairstow hit the stumps and Labuschagne (the batter at the time) was out of his crease, do you think England would withdraw the appeal or say 'it's not in the spirit of the game'?

 

[Hook461123]

I actually think it is a deflection of pressure from them losing. Stokes is a master of it.

So let me understand, bowling legside bouncers for 3hours is in the spirit of the game (so much for the entertaining cricket Stokes). And not walking for a catch that was clearly controlled is in the spirit of the game.
But stumping someone who is wondering out of their crease isn’t in the spirit of the game.
Makes sense

 

[Ochre]

Think something that also gets a bit lost is that Bairstow tried the exact same thing in the same Test just two days before.

If Bairstow hit the stumps and Labuschagne (the batter at the time) was out of his crease, do you think England would withdraw the appeal or say 'it's not in the spirit of the game'?

Marnus was batting outside of his crease there so it's not exactly the same, Bairstow wasn't looking to get an advantage when he was batting. Same with comparing this to mankadding a batter leaving early.

I think I would withdrawn the appeal personally but I'm not overly concerned they didn't. The hyperventilating by parts of England has been fun to watch.

 

[Ishmael_]

I actually think it is a deflection of pressure from them losing. Stokes is a master of it.

So let me understand, bowling legside bouncers for 3hours is in the spirit of the game (so much for the entertaining cricket Stokes). And not walking for a catch that was clearly controlled is in the spirit of the game.
But stumping someone who is wondering out of their crease isn’t in the spirit of the game.
Makes sense

And the crowd gave him cover for England to feign indignation and raise the ethics case.

His batting and the controversy saved England from a brutal, old testament, media battering.

And has again shielded his players from acknowledging that they're playing a very good Australian team and that they need to be sharper.

I'm not sure that's a good thing.

 

[kane249]

Fair enough

Do you feel the same way about Mankad and the underarm ball, both of which are/were perfectly legal.

Mankad is a tricky one. End of the day you do have the non striker trying to get a competitive edge by leaving his crease before the bowler releases his delivery. It's only ehtics/spirit of the game you say let's give him a warning, when the batter is deliberately trying to seek an advantage and exploit the goodwill of the fielding team.

Two sides to that story.


As for underarm? That one was more unethical than Carey's, but again as you said it was legal. Blame the ICC for having a loophole big enough to drive a truck through.

Anyone drawing comparison between underarm and the Bairstow incident is an idiot drawing a long bow. Not saying you are here either just clarifying.

 

[Goroyals22]

Two separate things.

Things can be legal but unethical. And I'd put the Bairstow dismissal as that. Same with Mankad.

Go and read the complete toss that’s the spirit of cricket preamble and get back to us when you find where it’s contravened it.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Hook461123]

And the crowd gave him cover for England to feign indignation and raise the ethics case.

His batting and the controversy saved England from a brutal, old testament, media battering.

And has again shielded his players from acknowledging that they're playing a very good Australian team and that they need to be sharper.

I'm not sure that's a good thing.

The Bazzball thing is designed to take the pressure off the players. Go out and play their natural game without fear of consequence. Play to entertain.

Problem with that is that it gives the player an out when pressure is high.

 

[Tugga27]

Marnus was batting outside of his crease there so it's not exactly the same, Bairstow wasn't looking to get an advantage when he was batting. Same with comparing this to mankadding a batter leaving early.

I think I would withdrawn the appeal personally but I'm not overly concerned they didn't. The hyperventilating by parts of England has been fun to watch.

The thing with that argument, is that Carey had obviously spoken to Cummins about Bairstow leaving his crease and was given the green light to try and run him out.

So after okaying it, you can't really withdraw it.

It would also make Carey look like an arse.

 

[Tugga27]

Mankad is a tricky one. End of the day you do have the non striker trying to get a competitive edge by leaving his crease before the bowler releases his delivery. It's only ehtics/spirit of the game you say let's give him a warning, when the batter is deliberately trying to seek an advantage and exploit the goodwill of the fielding team.

Two sides to that story.


As for underarm? That one was more unethical than Carey's, but again as you said it was legal. Blame the ICC for having a loophole big enough to drive a truck through.

Anyone drawing comparison between underarm and the Bairstow incident is an idiot drawing a long bow. Not saying you are here either just clarifying.

And Chappell has come out many times and said he wouldn't have done it if he was thinking clearly.
He was mentally cooked at the time.