Keep sooking Jonny

[Black Diamond]

Deliberate wides don't break any laws of the game. Malaysia bowled a deliberate wide against Vanuatu in a one day playoff recently to stop Vanuatu potentially hitting a six and over taking Malaysia on NRR.

Hookes didn’t tell Jones he had moved and instructed the wide, which is an infringement against the batsman (the batsman is awarded a run).

If Carey’s actions are not in the spirit then I reckon there would be an outcry for this as well. Jones did try to argue at the time.

 

[Rabish Binney]

Jonny has a challenger for most deluded England player

Oh FFS.

Delusional sooks.

 

[Rabish Binney]

Hookes didn’t tell Jones he had moved and instructed the wide, which is an infringement against the batsman (the batsman is awarded a run).

If Carey’s actions are not in the spirit then I reckon there would be an outcry for this as well. Jones did try to argue at the time.

1. If Hookes took up his fielding position before the bowler started his run up then there is no problem. However if he changed position after then there is an issue (the clip doesn't show this?)

2. The ball wasn't called a wide. He just bowled it wide of the stumps which you are allowed to do.

 

[ioppolo]

How about this one from the other night?

 

[010203]

How about this one from the other night?

Correct decision by the letter of the law. It's a bit like the one with Mark Waugh against South Africa at the Adelaide Oval in 1998.

 

[ioppolo]

Correct decision by the letter of the law. It's a bit like the one with Mark Waugh against South Africa at the Adelaide Oval in 1998.

Wasn't sure on the rules exactly. I've seen iffy ones given out before.

 

[Gethelred]

Correct decision by the letter of the law. It's a bit like the one with Mark Waugh against South Africa at the Adelaide Oval in 1998.

Depends entirely on where you adjudicate the shot to end.

I'd give it out purely because the muppet is batting a foot or more inside his crease and chose to continue to swing his bat after he played the shot.

If a player missed the ball on his first attempt but managed to collect it in their recovery and hits it for 4, is he asking them to take the runs off him because they didn't mean it? Or if a player went the hook, it hits their helmet and deflects onto the bat which pops straight up in the air, is it not out because he wasn't playing a shot at the time?

It also could be that I really don't think anyone should be batting that deep in the crease anyway. You leave yourself open to being dismissed in that way when you do.

But an international umpire is going to interpret the rules in the path of least resistance, so they won't call something like that purely to keep feathers unruffled.

 

[Black Diamond]

Correct decision by the letter of the law. It's a bit like the one with Mark Waugh against South Africa at the Adelaide Oval in 1998.

Waugh should have been out though.

 

[010203]

Wasn't sure on the rules exactly. I've seen iffy ones given out before.

If a batter is no longer in the action of receiving the ball or playing a shot, they are generally given not out.

 

[ioppolo]

If a batter is no longer in the action of receiving the ball or playing a shot, they are generally given not out.

I don't really agree. Until the ball is dead is what I've always thought. Sachin Tendulkar and Toby Roland-Jones have both been out hit wicket after playing their shot but the ball was still live.

Just watched the Mark Waugh one. I can't believe that's not out (without actually knowing the rule to the word).

 

[Around the Wicket]

I didn’t like the Bairstow dismissal but knowing Barstow he would have been out soon after anyhow, one of the worst 100+ Tests players of all time.

 

[Rabish Binney]

I didn’t like the Bairstow dismissal but knowing Barstow he would have been out soon after anyhow, one of the worst 100+ Tests players of all time.

Why didn't you like the Bairstow dismissal?

It's 100% out everyday of the week. Schoolboy stuff from Bairstow. Carey did nothing wrong.

How do you feel about Bairstow's stumping in this clip?



The guy is a f**** hypocrite.

 

[Gethelred]

Why didn't you like the Bairstow dismissal?

It's 100% out everyday of the week. Schoolboy stuff from Bairstow. Carey did nothing wrong.

How do you feel about Bairstow's stumping in this clip?



The guy is a f**** hypocrite.

And - even if he wasn't, even if he was the fairest player in the entirety of cricket, even if he was every bit the moral human Brendan McCullum thought he was - it's still out.

Ball's not dead just 'cause you think it is, Jonny.

 

[PhatBoy]

And - even if he wasn't, even if he was the fairest player in the entirety of cricket, even if he was every bit the moral human Brendan McCullum thought he was - it's still out.

Ball's not dead just 'cause you think it is, Jonny.

Equally there’s nothing wrong with being slightly uncomfortable about a mode of dismissal even if it’s within the rules.

I fully accept the legality of mankading and won’t ‘protest’ someone being dismissed that way but have qualms on it in certain circumstances so I understand why people aren’t crazy on the optics of all cricket dismissals no matter how correct they may be

 

[Gethelred]

Equally there’s nothing wrong with being slightly uncomfortable about a mode of dismissal even if it’s within the rules.

I fully accept the legality of mankading and won’t ‘protest’ someone being dismissed that way but have qualms on it in certain circumstances so I understand why people aren’t crazy on the optics of all cricket dismissals no matter how correct they may be

To call the reaction from the entire ****ing English establishment - crowds, players, the ****ing Lords members - 'slightly uncomfortable' is such an understatement as to render the rest of it rather... meaningless.

Only in a game of cricket can a player be cast as a villain for following the rules.

The other side of it too is that Jonny Bairstow is an irreconcilable whinger. He wears the expression of a man perpetually aggrieved and vindicated. When things are going well it's as though he deserves it, the hero of his own story; when things are going badly, he behaves as though something unjust was done, as though he were tricked or cheated out of his rightful dues. That this happened to him - and could only have happened to him in this way - allowed him to dine out on being mistreated in this way; the whole thing fed on it. Bazball's need - requirement - to spin reality to force your opponent onto the back foot; Bairstow's personal need to find something to prove he was hard done by; Broad's facile and childish need to try and bully other people, in this case Alex Carey; Stokes need to take the moral high ground.

I think the forgotten thing about all this is that prior to the Bairstow dismissal, Carey was a cricketer on the rise. He was having a sensational series with the bat (having played a series of necessary innings) and his keeping was excellent; after being made the villain and having the entire force of the British rumour press, the public, and social media turned on him for doing something entirely within the rules, he went completely into his shell and it's only a good year or so later that he started playing as though he came out.

Whole stadiums booing you whenever you walked out to bat or took a catch will do that to you.

Carey was bullied into playing worse. If I was uncomfortable when Australia did it - and I was and am - I can criticize an opponent who deliberately and coldly weaponised their media context and establishment to hound a player on and off the field for an act within the rules.

I've not had a whole heap negative to say about Bazball, Phat; I think in cricket terms, it's probably the only way they can win games of cricket because the playing stocks aren't good enough to play properly. But I genuinely despise the way cultlike way they weaponise the off field to try and put pressure on their opponents; it's an extension of what Waugh did with mental disintegration. And it's after a full 20 years of society coming to terms with the affects of workplace bullying and harassment, and it's in full public view.

It's wrong. I don't think pointing out that cricket is a weird game excuses any of it.

 

[PhatBoy]

To call the reaction from the entire ******* English establishment - crowds, players, the ******* Lords members - 'slightly uncomfortable' is such an understatement as to render the rest of it rather... meaningless.

Only in a game of cricket can a player be cast as a villain for following the rules.

The other side of it too is that Jonny Bairstow is an irreconcilable whinger. He wears the expression of a man perpetually aggrieved and vindicated. When things are going well it's as though he deserves it, the hero of his own story; when things are going badly, he behaves as though something unjust was done, as though he were tricked or cheated out of his rightful dues. That this happened to him - and could only have happened to him in this way - allowed him to dine out on being mistreated in this way; the whole thing fed on it. Bazball's need - requirement - to spin reality to force your opponent onto the back foot; Bairstow's personal need to find something to prove he was hard done by; Broad's facile and childish need to try and bully other people, in this case Alex Carey; Stokes need to take the moral high ground.

I think the forgotten thing about all this is that prior to the Bairstow dismissal, Carey was a cricketer on the rise. He was having a sensational series with the bat (having played a series of necessary innings) and his keeping was excellent; after being made the villain and having the entire force of the British rumour press, the public, and social media turned on him for doing something entirely within the rules, he went completely into his shell and it's only a good year or so later that he started playing as though he came out.

Whole stadiums booing you whenever you walked out to bat or took a catch will do that to you.

Carey was bullied into playing worse. If I was uncomfortable when Australia did it - and I was and am - I can criticize an opponent who deliberately and coldly weaponised their media context and establishment to hound a player on and off the field for an act within the rules.

I've not had a whole heap negative to say about Bazball, Phat; I think in cricket terms, it's probably the only way they can win games of cricket because the playing stocks aren't good enough to play properly. But I genuinely despise the way cultlike way they weaponise the off field to try and put pressure on their opponents; it's an extension of what Waugh did with mental disintegration. And it's after a full 20 years of society coming to terms with the affects of workplace bullying and harassment, and it's in full public view.

It's wrong. I don't think pointing out that cricket is a weird game excuses any of it.

I don’t disagree with a lot of that. The overreaction to it was far disproportionate to the act itself, I don’t have a problem saying that at all and Bairstow has made a rod for his own back by seemingly being unable to shake the whinging tag the way broad does by whinging but at the same time ‘getting on with it’ most of the time and the crowds were abysmal.

But I still have a problem with the dismissal itself and always will if it doesn’t involve a player trying to gain an advantage or being bested by skill which are basically the two core aspects of any of the modes of dismissal in cricket

 

[Gethelred]

I don’t disagree with a lot of that. The overreaction to it was far disproportionate to the act itself, I don’t have a problem saying that at all and Bairstow has made a rod for his own back by seemingly being unable to shake the whinging tag the way broad does by whinging but at the same time ‘getting on with it’ most of the time and the crowds were abysmal.

But I still have a problem with the dismissal itself and always will if it doesn’t involve a player trying to gain an advantage or being bested by skill which are basically the two core aspects of any of the modes of dismissal in cricket

Paying attention is not a skill? Isn't the ability to focus intensely for hours on end an ability prized by bats around the world?

It's so easy to go out, Phat. Just one blemish at the wrong time, and you're done. The moment was completely within Bairstow's control, and it's his own bloody fault for going for a wander. Don't go for a wander, and you're not out.

At the end of every over, I check that everyone else is moving before I leave my crease. I do this because in a game I played in, my brother went out doing what Jonny did. I learnt the lesson that day, and so did he; pity that Jonny never seemed to, despite having gotten people out that way himself.

 

[Gethelred]

But then, I've been quoted before saying, "You can take the gloves off the keeper, but you can't stop them being a campaigner."

Treating the keeper as though they're not a campaigner leads to going out. It's your own fault for opening the door.

 

[PhatBoy]

Paying attention is not a skill? Isn't the ability to focus intensely for hours on end an ability prized by bats around the world?

It's so easy to go out, Phat. Just one blemish at the wrong time, and you're done. The moment was completely within Bairstow's control, and it's his own bloody fault for going for a wander. Don't go for a wander, and you're not out.

At the end of every over, I check that everyone else is moving before I leave my crease. I do this because in a game I played in, my brother went out doing what Jonny did. I learnt the lesson that day, and so did he; pity that Jonny never seemed to, despite having gotten people out that way himself.

Sorry mate I’ve got to disagree with that. I don’t hold it against anyone involved but you watch the ball go through to the keeper and put your foot back in the crease and to me that’s game over. Not everyone agrees and that’s fine but that’s my interpretation. The fundamental skills are batting, bowling, fielding, running, and not trying to gain an unfair advantage would come within the parameters of observing the rules themselves and I don’t think the incident fell under any of those umbrellas so I didn’t really agree with it.

Like is said I don’t have any issue with the parties involved but if I’m a keeper and I see a player with his foot in the crease and observe the ball come through to me and give a cursory glance and then go and do some gardening I’m not running him out.

Equally if I’m dumb enough to get out that way I’m not spending the next 12 months moaning about it every time I have a microphone thrust in my face

 

[Gethelred]

Sorry mate I’ve got to disagree with that. I don’t hold it against anyone involved but you watch the ball go through to the keeper and put your foot back in the crease and to me that’s game over. Not everyone agrees and that’s fine but that’s my interpretation. The fundamental skills are batting, bowling, fielding, running, and not trying to gain an unfair advantage would come within the parameters of observing the rules themselves and I don’t think the incident fell under any of those umbrellas so I didn’t really agree with it.

Like is said I don’t have any issue with the parties involved but if I’m a keeper and I see a player with his foot in the crease and observe the ball come through to me and give a cursory glance and then go and do some gardening I’m not running him out.

... which is why you're not a keeper.

Some keepers are born to it where others are made. You need that bit of mongrel in you to be a good one, a bit of bloodymindedness that makes you square your jaw and take that ball when your fingers are broken or your knees and back are ****ed from bending over for 63 overs. To be a keeper is to begrudge the batter that slightest of inches.

Every good keeper I've ever known is a campaigner; sometimes they're a funny campaigner, others they're just a right campaigner, but all of the good ones simply are.

Equally if I’m dumb enough to get out that way I’m not spending the next 12 months moaning about it every time I have a microphone thrust in my face

Exactly.

 

[Sunshine81]

Sorry mate I’ve got to disagree with that. I don’t hold it against anyone involved but you watch the ball go through to the keeper and put your foot back in the crease and to me that’s game over. Not everyone agrees and that’s fine but that’s my interpretation. The fundamental skills are batting, bowling, fielding, running, and not trying to gain an unfair advantage would come within the parameters of observing the rules themselves and I don’t think the incident fell under any of those umbrellas so I didn’t really agree with it.

Like is said I don’t have any issue with the parties involved but if I’m a keeper and I see a player with his foot in the crease and observe the ball come through to me and give a cursory glance and then go and do some gardening I’m not running him out.

Equally if I’m dumb enough to get out that way I’m not spending the next 12 months moaning about it every time I have a microphone thrust in my face

Fair enough that you think the stumping wasn't kosher. I'm not sure about the not trying to gain an unfair advantage bit. What would you define as an unfair advantage?

I assume there's plenty of other stuff you don't agree with, such as teams trying to get the ball changed when it doesn't perform as they like, teams using mints to shine the ball, throwing the ball back to the keeper on the bounce to rough it up.

If Bairstow left his crease with Carey keeping up at the stumps, would it be ok for Carey to stump him then?

The unfair advantage seems like it's wrapped up into the spirit of the game, where there becomes a huge grey area as to what is and what isn't acceptable.

Bairstow's actions are essentially saying he is deciding when the ball is dead, but the umpires. He is taking away the fielding teams options as soon as the ball lands in the keepers gloves.

Maybe you would give the batter a warning, and fair enough.

 

[Sleezy]

...but you watch the ball go through to the keeper and put your foot back in the crease...

If Bairstow had actually watched the ball into Carey's gloves, he would have seen Carey take the ball and threw it immediately.

He didn’t though. He assumed that with the ball past him he was safe, went for a wander, and got done.

 

[PhatBoy]

Fair enough that you think the stumping wasn't kosher. I'm not sure about the not trying to gain an unfair advantage bit. What would you define as an unfair advantage?

I assume there's plenty of other stuff you don't agree with, such as teams trying to get the ball changed when it doesn't perform as they like, teams using mints to shine the ball, throwing the ball back to the keeper on the bounce to rough it up.

If Bairstow left his crease with Carey keeping up at the stumps, would it be ok for Carey to stump him then?

The unfair advantage seems like it's wrapped up into the spirit of the game, where there becomes a huge grey area as to what is and what isn't acceptable.

Bairstow's actions are essentially saying he is deciding when the ball is dead, but the umpires. He is taking away the fielding teams options as soon as the ball lands in the keepers gloves.

Maybe you would give the batter a warning, and fair enough.

I see mints no differently to gum so whichever side of that argument people fall on I think that’s where it lies. What’s good for one is good for everyone. That’s my problem with people spilling their guts over 2005.

For decades players have chewed gum in many cases to produce spit so they can shine the ball. What’s the difference? England found a way that does it better. Suddenly people didn’t like it. It’s either one or the other. I’m glad they took a blanket stance in any case.

With the ball thing, they have the rings for a reason: if the ball doesn’t fit, they change it. My problem with that is going back every second over until it happens and doing it not because they can actually see a problem with the shape, but because they aren’t getting a wicket. I can’t imagine Dale Steyn or Malcolm Marshall or Glenn McGrath being so defeatist.

With a stumping the whole concept is that a batsman might be trying to crib a few feet to negate the swing or whatever so keepers take measures to counter that in itself: they stand up to the stumps or they try and effect a stumping, or in an extreme case a batsman might be trying to sneak a single when the keeper isn’t looking so they give themselves a head start. Generally a batsman trying to do the first of those things - counter swing - will do the normal thing and go back to his crease to acknowledge that he’s not playing a shot at that ball and that there’s going to be no attempt to steal a run or anything.

As you pointed out Bairstow in his doziness didn’t actually watch the ball all the way through so that’s on him so fair enough there can be a price to pay for that. But as I said to Gethelred I personally couldn’t find myself having a ping especially if at some point they’ve patted the bat or a foot back behind the crease before absent mindlessly having a wander

 

[the_interloper]

But then, I've been quoted before saying, "You can take the gloves off the keeper, but you can't stop them being a campaigner."

Treating the keeper as though they're not a campaigner leads to going out. It's your own fault for opening the door.

That's awesome ha ha, your keeper needs to be a campaigner, they certainly need to be a leader in terms of sledging. I always think of how annoying Ian Healy must have been behind the stumps, hard to handle just listening to his commentary!

 

[Rabish Binney]

That's awesome ha ha, your keeper needs to be a campaigner, they certainly need to be a leader in terms of sledging. I always think of how annoying Ian Healy must have been behind the stumps, hard to handle just listening to his commentary!

I cant remember his name but the Pakistan keeper just doesn't shut up.