I know very little about cricket (One of many subjects no doubt) but when players get riled up and start smashing 6s do people not ask why they haven't been giving 100% the rest of the time? Seems most sports people are offended by the suggestion they might not be giving 100% at all times but I think we know differently.
I'll admit I'm a very casual cricket fan, but I don't see how seizing a legitimate chance to take a wicket (one of the objects of the game) within the rules can be 'unsporting'?
I don't think that's a fair comparison - and also... play to the whistle, most of the time (circumstances like when Blooms took that blow to the head v Lincoln and the ref just froze are a bit different).
I think another comparison would be when a team has scored straight from a throw in after an injury, when unwritten rule requires the ball be given back. Perfectly good goal, but all hell breaks loose.
Why have such a strong opinion when you’ve said yourself you are not an expert on cricket? That’s the bizarre thing. @Shev has a reasonably good equivalent in football, but it would be more blatant. Wycombe player is on the receiving end of a bad tackle, is obviously badly hurt and one of our players kicks the ball out for urgent treatment. On the restart after our player is stretchered off, the opposition take the throw in a manner which seems they will knock it back to us, but then their player plays a sneaky through ball to an onrushing striker who, playing amongst statues with their hands in the air and bemused looks on their faces, slots the ball past the keeper who is standing still, dumbfounded, making no attempt at a save. The goal is perfectly within the laws of the game, but certainly not in the spirit in which any sport should be played. How would you feel about it? Furthermore, it’s not Wycombe, it’s in the absolute pinnacle of the sport, an Ashes Test Match at Lords. It was absolutely awful sportsmanship, cheating, whatever you want to call it. Australia are the better side and didn’t need to stoop to such levels to win. The fact they did has really shone a hugely negative light on their excellent cricket team.
Except @Shev didn't give a reasonably good footballing equivalent. The equivalent cricketing situation to what @Shev described would be a batsman pulling a hamstring running between the stumps. Some cricket teams would run the batsman out others might not. Just as happens in football when some teams stop playing for a injured opponent and others do not.
Bairstow did the equivalent of not playing to the whistle/flag when you think the ball has gone into touch. Almost all football fans would expect their team to take the attacking advantage of such sloppy play from a defender.
Also not sure whether the Karma of the Bairstow ‘run out’ will balance out over the series or whether it has already following the Duckett ‘dropped catch’ the previous evening.
Because in cricket (and in everything else too) there are both explicit written rules and implicit unwritten customs which determine how we expect people should act in any given circumstance.
I agree it’s borderline whether the Bairstow dismissal was ‘cheating’ but (to use poker vocabulary) it was definitely angle shooting at the very least and shouldn’t have happened.
While the tactics employed during the ‘bodyline’ Ashes did not breach the laws of the game, it is still a shameful episode in English cricket that should never have happened.
Couldn’t agree more with those sentiments. Australia have a good enough team without the need to cheat and cheating it was. Cummins should have withdrawn the appeal.
I can see it from both sides but really it was a pathetic way to take an important wicket- as Ben Stokes said he wouldn’t want to win like that and I expect many Aussies feel the same.
It was basically cowardice. I’ve no problem with the actions of Carey and the decision of the umpire, but Cummings, as captain, had the (admittedly tough decision) as to whether to withdraw the appeal in the spirit of the game (still important) or let it pass.
At a key stage of the game withdrawing the appeal would have been the brave (and honourable) decision. Not doing so was therefore somewhat cowardly.
Pretty sure Cummings will regret that decision in time. If a fired up England turn it round, that time may be sooner rather than later.
I think there is a nuance here that’s missing. Stokes started hitting more sixes after Bairstow was dismissed because he adopted a more attacking approach given the situation in the game. He was always capable of smashing sixes, but it wasn’t the best tactic until Bairstow was out.
All of the batting line-up down to Bairstow are basically in the team because they are the best in the country at batting, and have (very) approximately the same level of skill. Below Bairstow, the players are mainly in the team for their bowling. While Stokes was batting with Bairstow they were equal partners, each entirely capable of scoring half the remaining runs required. As long as there are two specialist batsman* at the crease they can play safe, percentage shots** and accumulate runs without taking too many risks.
Once Bairstow is dismissed, Stokes is batting alongside players who are unlikely to get high scores so there is a greater responsibility on Stokes alone to score the remaining runs required. He needs to change tactics to adapt to the match situation, as his batting partners are more likely to get out and not as likely to hang around and slowly accumulate runs. This means it is now the optimal approach to play more aggressive, higher risk but higher reward shots - hence the flurry of sixes.
*Yes, Bairstow is also a keeper, but he is in the team because of his batting.
**in theory, at least. ‘Bazball’ seems to have dispensed with this a little, and the current default approach is more attacking and T20-influenced than would be traditional in Test cricket.
Not going to justify the Aussies behaviour but what I will say is that the England team (whether this is the fun of Bazball or the fact that they all play franchise cricket around the world) seem to think that the opposition are their mates. For 25 days they are the opposition, the enemy if you wish, they are not your friends. Bairstow's casual attitude and the the faux outrage of the moral majority forgets that the Aussies want to win at all costs. England don't have that. And they need it.
Comments
Anyone else want to see Stokes rein it in a bit now?
I know very little about cricket (One of many subjects no doubt) but when players get riled up and start smashing 6s do people not ask why they haven't been giving 100% the rest of the time? Seems most sports people are offended by the suggestion they might not be giving 100% at all times but I think we know differently.
103 could be got safely in singles. Stokes out, game lost.
Stupid of Bairstow, unsporting of the Australians.
I'll admit I'm a very casual cricket fan, but I don't see how seizing a legitimate chance to take a wicket (one of the objects of the game) within the rules can be 'unsporting'?
A player goes down hurt, losing the ball in the process. His team mates stop, the opposition carry on and score. What happens next?
I don't think that's a fair comparison - and also... play to the whistle, most of the time (circumstances like when Blooms took that blow to the head v Lincoln and the ref just froze are a bit different).
I think another comparison would be when a team has scored straight from a throw in after an injury, when unwritten rule requires the ball be given back. Perfectly good goal, but all hell breaks loose.
Batsman leaves the crease before the ball is called dead, wicket keeper throws ball at stumps and removes bails.
Extremely poor from Bairstow, switched on reactions by the Aussies.
How anyone can think otherwise is beyond me.
It's an English thing
So if England had taken that wicket, we should have asked the umpire not to give it because of 'spirit'?
Absolutely.
Bizarre. What's the point of having rules then?
Why have such a strong opinion when you’ve said yourself you are not an expert on cricket? That’s the bizarre thing. @Shev has a reasonably good equivalent in football, but it would be more blatant. Wycombe player is on the receiving end of a bad tackle, is obviously badly hurt and one of our players kicks the ball out for urgent treatment. On the restart after our player is stretchered off, the opposition take the throw in a manner which seems they will knock it back to us, but then their player plays a sneaky through ball to an onrushing striker who, playing amongst statues with their hands in the air and bemused looks on their faces, slots the ball past the keeper who is standing still, dumbfounded, making no attempt at a save. The goal is perfectly within the laws of the game, but certainly not in the spirit in which any sport should be played. How would you feel about it? Furthermore, it’s not Wycombe, it’s in the absolute pinnacle of the sport, an Ashes Test Match at Lords. It was absolutely awful sportsmanship, cheating, whatever you want to call it. Australia are the better side and didn’t need to stoop to such levels to win. The fact they did has really shone a hugely negative light on their excellent cricket team.
I don't need to be an expert go have an opinion
Comparing between sports is a bit pointless
Predictable Aussie cheating aside, the worst thing is if we’d batted properly in our two first innings we’d probably be leading the series 2-0
Except @Shev didn't give a reasonably good footballing equivalent. The equivalent cricketing situation to what @Shev described would be a batsman pulling a hamstring running between the stumps. Some cricket teams would run the batsman out others might not. Just as happens in football when some teams stop playing for a injured opponent and others do not.
Bairstow did the equivalent of not playing to the whistle/flag when you think the ball has gone into touch. Almost all football fans would expect their team to take the attacking advantage of such sloppy play from a defender.
Pointless comparing between sports, but the equivalent is a player deliberately shooting after the ball has been kicked out for an injury.
May be within the rules, but I don't want to see my team doing that.
If England had done that, I'd expect Stokes to withdraw the appeal
Well that was interesting!
Not really what to make sure of any of it.
Also not sure whether the Karma of the Bairstow ‘run out’ will balance out over the series or whether it has already following the Duckett ‘dropped catch’ the previous evening.
All good fun
Even if people don't like it because it goes against the 'spirit of the game', how is it cheating? That implies a rule has been broken.
Because in cricket (and in everything else too) there are both explicit written rules and implicit unwritten customs which determine how we expect people should act in any given circumstance.
I agree it’s borderline whether the Bairstow dismissal was ‘cheating’ but (to use poker vocabulary) it was definitely angle shooting at the very least and shouldn’t have happened.
While the tactics employed during the ‘bodyline’ Ashes did not breach the laws of the game, it is still a shameful episode in English cricket that should never have happened.
Couldn’t agree more with those sentiments. Australia have a good enough team without the need to cheat and cheating it was. Cummins should have withdrawn the appeal.
I can see it from both sides but really it was a pathetic way to take an important wicket- as Ben Stokes said he wouldn’t want to win like that and I expect many Aussies feel the same.
Anyone in anyway justifying the Aussies' behaviour understands absolutely nothing about cricket
Does Michael Atherton - who didn't have a problem with it - know nothing about cricket?
.
It was basically cowardice. I’ve no problem with the actions of Carey and the decision of the umpire, but Cummings, as captain, had the (admittedly tough decision) as to whether to withdraw the appeal in the spirit of the game (still important) or let it pass.
At a key stage of the game withdrawing the appeal would have been the brave (and honourable) decision. Not doing so was therefore somewhat cowardly.
Pretty sure Cummings will regret that decision in time. If a fired up England turn it round, that time may be sooner rather than later.
I think there is a nuance here that’s missing. Stokes started hitting more sixes after Bairstow was dismissed because he adopted a more attacking approach given the situation in the game. He was always capable of smashing sixes, but it wasn’t the best tactic until Bairstow was out.
All of the batting line-up down to Bairstow are basically in the team because they are the best in the country at batting, and have (very) approximately the same level of skill. Below Bairstow, the players are mainly in the team for their bowling. While Stokes was batting with Bairstow they were equal partners, each entirely capable of scoring half the remaining runs required. As long as there are two specialist batsman* at the crease they can play safe, percentage shots** and accumulate runs without taking too many risks.
Once Bairstow is dismissed, Stokes is batting alongside players who are unlikely to get high scores so there is a greater responsibility on Stokes alone to score the remaining runs required. He needs to change tactics to adapt to the match situation, as his batting partners are more likely to get out and not as likely to hang around and slowly accumulate runs. This means it is now the optimal approach to play more aggressive, higher risk but higher reward shots - hence the flurry of sixes.
*Yes, Bairstow is also a keeper, but he is in the team because of his batting.
**in theory, at least. ‘Bazball’ seems to have dispensed with this a little, and the current default approach is more attacking and T20-influenced than would be traditional in Test cricket.
Not going to justify the Aussies behaviour but what I will say is that the England team (whether this is the fun of Bazball or the fact that they all play franchise cricket around the world) seem to think that the opposition are their mates. For 25 days they are the opposition, the enemy if you wish, they are not your friends. Bairstow's casual attitude and the the faux outrage of the moral majority forgets that the Aussies want to win at all costs. England don't have that. And they need it.