2nd Ashes Test

Wizaard said:
I was more than surprised and was laughing more at Taylor's reaction to br honest.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I was in the West not far from the dugouts and it was a mixture of hilarity and joy at the goal. Probably wasn't right though (although I've always said their keeper sliced his kick and had no intention of putting the ball out- his reaction said the same).
 
The Problem is that Aussies just don't get the whole "Spirit of the game" thing or have any sense of "sportsmanship" . It's not in their psyche or genetic make-up . You have to remember they are in the main descended from the lowest of the the low , the scum degenerates & criminals of 18th Century Britain so therefore have absolutely no concept of "fair play" or being "reasonable" or have any sense of shame . Having said that Bairstow is clearly at fault for being in a daze & not looking behind him & the 3rd umpires decision was correct
 
It's all quite strange. Bairstow was out by the law book, and really should know better. Carey did what every other backie does, it should just be a withdrawn appeal and get on with it.

I do hope we now go on to stuff the tw@s.

I remember going to Headingly in '81 on a school trip - but it was the 60 over 1 dayer, before the test series started. England were chasing 260 odd, Rodney Hogg opening the bowling for Oz, Boycott on strike. Incredibly, flashed at the first one, got a top edge over the slips for 4. Ground erupts. Second ball, plumb in front, deathly silence. Then it erupted again, but just like football grounds were in those days. We were right in the corner of the West Terrace, by where it opened into the rugby side and Hogg came to field right in front of us next over. They all but went on and had a go, Hogg was offering it them back, nasty sod he was. The atmosphere Thursday after this should be electric.

Not all Australians can be tarred with the same brush though. Jim Maxwell was openly against it on air yesterday, the Great Richie after the Chappell pearoller thing against NZ was as blunt as I've ever heard him, and Rod Marsh was against it on field too. And the match that started the whole Ashes thing off in 1882 was stirred into controversial life by WG doing something that sounded like a cross between Carey and a Mankad.
 
voyeur said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1675607215263154178
Click to expand...
The irony is also Bairstow is a wicket keeper himself and should know full well. I think the Aussies brought this upon themselves to some extent with the Starc drop. The fact that the ball can't touch the ground during a catch is well understood, but they cried foul about something that was pretty straightforward.

Don't think it's good if professionals start pretending that they don't know/understand the rules of the game. In both instances, these are things drilled into you when you first start learning.
 
XBeds-Now-Kings_Meaburn said:
The Problem is that Aussies just don't get the whole "Spirit of the game" thing or have any sense of "sportsmanship" . It's not in their psyche or genetic make-up . You have to remember they are in the main descended from the lowest of the the low , the scum degenerates & criminals of 18th Century Britain so therefore have absolutely no concept of "fair play" or being "reasonable" or have any sense of shame . Having said that Bairstow is clearly at fault for being in a daze & not looking behind him & the 3rd umpires decision was correct
Click to expand...
I take it you won't be holidaying or visiting Oz then. 🤭
 
Macseasider said:
Eh? I haven't offered any opinion on the incident at all. It's out I guess but shithousery of epic proportions. One day the Aussies might win a test without any controversy.
Click to expand...

Sorry about that MAC.

It was just that I saw that you had liked Herts post that said Bairstow had grounded his bat which he certainly didn't.

His post also referred to what you call "shithousery of epic proportions" and you won't get any argument from me on that.

It was out - as you also say - but very very poor form from the Aussies when Bairstow was clearly not trying anything on.
 
XBeds-Now-Kings_Meaburn said:
The Problem is that Aussies just don't get the whole "Spirit of the game" thing or have any sense of "sportsmanship" . It's not in their psyche or genetic make-up . You have to remember they are in the main descended from the lowest of the the low , the scum degenerates & criminals of 18th Century Britain so therefore have absolutely no concept of "fair play" or being "reasonable" or have any sense of shame . Having said that Bairstow is clearly at fault for being in a daze & not looking behind him & the 3rd umpires decision was correct
Click to expand...
Utter bollox, win at all costs, if BFC adopted that psychic we may have chance
 
We'd have justified similar "unsporting" actions, were they to have helped either Blackpool FC, or our national team playing any particular sport, win a game.

Bairstow knows the rules.

McCullum suggests the incident will "galvanise " England. We'll see. Surely we wouldn't have needed something like this to motivate us for an Ashes series.

Anthony Albanese is spot on. The Aussies know how to win. Ask an Australian about pre-season sporting "friendlies" for example. They'd laugh in your face. No such thing.

Don't think we can adopt any moral high ground.

Apparently Khawaja was subsequently subjected to inappropriate behaviour from Lords members. Disgraceful, if true, even more so in light of the ICEC report.
Spirit of the game, my arse.

Let's face it, a country with a population approximately one third that of England and Wales, seems to "Lord" it over us in the five-day game.
 
SEASIDE2020 said:
Sorry about that MAC.

It was just that I saw that you had liked Herts post that said Bairstow had grounded his bat which he certainly didn't.

His post also referred to what you call "shithousery of epic proportions" and you won't get any argument from me on that.

It was out - as you also say - but very very poor form from the Aussies when Bairstow was clearly not trying anything on.
Click to expand...
He grounded his foot behind the crease though. Scraped his guard before setting off.

It's out within the laws of the game, but not in the spirit. The same as the run out in the women's one dayer last year.
 
It’s naive by Bairstow, no doubt about it.

Opportunistic by Australia.

Strategic blunder for tactical gain?? They were probably going to win that Test without doing that, but now the entirety of English Cricket is wound up beyond belief and can ‘blame’ this result on Aussie Cheating and be fired up and right up in their grilles rather than entirely deflated at the failure of Baz Ball.

Time will tell but I’m hoping for Wood and Foakes to be selected for Headingly.
 
"The Spirit of the game" is enshrined within the "laws" of the game . Yes within the Laws alone it WAS out . Carey had the ball in glove for less than 1 second so his action as instinctive was acceptable . However once it was clear that there was a clear mis understanding by Bairstow(at fault for not looking behind him & checking) that the ball was dead then Cummings should have gone with "The Spirit of the game" law & retracted the appeal .
As I have said before though Australians dont have that sense of fair play . Its not in their psyche its not in their DNA because of where they as a nation came from .
 
We've lost two close Tests because they are slightly better than us. They have a more solid batting line up including the world's best batsman and a pace attack that is of high quality and has variation too. The loss of Lyon will be felt, but unlike us, they have a genuine replacement rather than part-timers or kids that could get mentally destroyed by a ruthless side.

We have enough to compete, but not enough to compete consistently. A lot of focus has been on the Bairstow incident, but a bigger issue at Lords was team selection. Not that we didn't play a spinner, but that we played a bowling line up that left us with a long tail for no apparent gain with the ball. Anderson, Broad and Robinson are all the same. If we wanted that type of bowler, then swap one of the 3 for Woakes and then you at least have someone who can bat at 8, which MAY have allowed Stokes to take the chase deeper.

And my final comment on the Bairstow situation, nothing is going to convince me that it was as awful as some are suggesting. Carey caught and threw in one motion. It wasn't a calculated 'trick'. All Bairstow needed to do was duck. Step back. Ground his bat and wait for the call of 'over'. The idea that you can just duck, pop your foot down in a relatively subtle manner and then wander down the crease is ridiculous. If a spinner was bowling and a batter was in his crease, but left the ball, the batter wouldn't set off walking the moment it hit the keepers gloves. It's really no different.
 
voyeur said:
That's just steaight forward racism tbh.

And they came from England! 😆
Click to expand...
Yes they did they came in main from the dregs of 18th Century Britain , . The thieves, The Robbers , people with low morals and standards . They then through hard graft & a NEED to win at life i a hostile environment created a great nation . However that Determination & Need to win is in their Psyche and way of life & comes out most in Sport
 
straightatthewall said:
We've lost two close Tests because they are slightly better than us. They have a more solid batting line up including the world's best batsman and a pace attack that is of high quality and has variation too. The loss of Lyon will be felt, but unlike us, they have a genuine replacement rather than part-timers or kids that could get mentally destroyed by a ruthless side.

We have enough to compete, but not enough to compete consistently. A lot of focus has been on the Bairstow incident, but a bigger issue at Lords was team selection. Not that we didn't play a spinner, but that we played a bowling line up that left us with a long tail for no apparent gain with the ball. Anderson, Broad and Robinson are all the same. If we wanted that type of bowler, then swap one of the 3 for Woakes and then you at least have someone who can bat at 8, which MAY have allowed Stokes to take the chase deeper.

And my final comment on the Bairstow situation, nothing is going to convince me that it was as awful as some are suggesting. Carey caught and threw in one motion. It wasn't a calculated 'trick'. All Bairstow needed to do was duck. Step back. Ground his bat and wait for the call of 'over'. The idea that you can just duck, pop your foot down in a relatively subtle manner and then wander down the crease is ridiculous. If a spinner was bowling and a batter was in his crease, but left the ball, the batter wouldn't set off walking the moment it hit the keepers gloves. It's really no different.
Click to expand...
Spot on that. Blown out of all proportion by a bunch of bad losers.

I think the bowling selection has been iffy too. Anderson and Stokes havent bowled much and have looked short of test match level. Spin wise I've no idea who to pick but i shuddered whem Ahmed was called up. Way too soon
 
XBeds-Now-Kings_Meaburn said:
Yes they did they came in main from the dregs of 18th Century Britain , . The thieves, The Robbers , people with low morals and standards . They then through hard graft & a NEED to win at life i a hostile environment created a great nation . However that Determination & Need to win is in their Psyche and way of life & comes out most in Sport
Click to expand...
Thats a warped and simplistic reading of history and reality i think. And racist. It's very risky trying to claim the moral high ground too.
 
straightatthewall said:
We've lost two close Tests because they are slightly better than us. They have a more solid batting line up including the world's best batsman and a pace attack that is of high quality and has variation too. The loss of Lyon will be felt, but unlike us, they have a genuine replacement rather than part-timers or kids that could get mentally destroyed by a ruthless side.

We have enough to compete, but not enough to compete consistently. A lot of focus has been on the Bairstow incident, but a bigger issue at Lords was team selection. Not that we didn't play a spinner, but that we played a bowling line up that left us with a long tail for no apparent gain with the ball. Anderson, Broad and Robinson are all the same. If we wanted that type of bowler, then swap one of the 3 for Woakes and then you at least have someone who can bat at 8, which MAY have allowed Stokes to take the chase deeper.

And my final comment on the Bairstow situation, nothing is going to convince me that it was as awful as some are suggesting. Carey caught and threw in one motion. It wasn't a calculated 'trick'. All Bairstow needed to do was duck. Step back. Ground his bat and wait for the call of 'over'. The idea that you can just duck, pop your foot down in a relatively subtle manner and then wander down the crease is ridiculous. If a spinner was bowling and a batter was in his crease, but left the ball, the batter wouldn't set off walking the moment it hit the keepers gloves. It's really no different.
Click to expand...
Carey had noted that Bairstow had done it twice before in the over. At one time, he'd have given Bairstow a warning after the first or second time he'd seen it. It's that aspect that seems to have gone from the game.
 
Aussies have a better bowling unit our bowlers 78-84mph with the odd 88-90 Aussies 84-90 plus a spinner (now out) thats whats been the difference so far . Been impressed with Ducket though Crawley for me is just not doing it enough . Pope at 3 not sure but who else do you put there ? Bairstow up the order & bring Foakes in with Pope or Crawley being dropped . Woods needs to play if fit .

My XI
Ducket
Bairstow
Pope
Root
Brook
Stokes
Foakes
A SPINNER ??????
Broad
Woods
Anderson
 
I remember David Gower coming well out of his crease to nullify a spinner, prodding the ball left for the bowler to collect. Gower turned, walking back whilst the bowler took the ball and threw at the stumps... Gower was run out. An utter shambleezay, but that's cricket.
 
voyeur said:
Thats a warped and simplistic reading of history and reality i think. And racist. It's very risky trying to claim the moral high ground too.
Click to expand...
Agree with your first point here. Also, I really hope Usman was not racially abused by the blazers. He's already been shown more than enough disrespect by our big mouthed medium pacer, who incidentally bottled it with the bat just when he was needed most.

As for moral high ground, I think all these kinds of incidents need to be judged individually on a case by case basis. This one for me was pushing 11 on the Beaufort scale or, if you prefer, sloppy diahorrea on the Bristol stool chart. Just behind the legendary underarm ball, which was full hurricane force/liquid faeces 💩
 
Mark_GT said:
Agree with your first point here. Also, I really hope Usman was not racially abused by the blazers. He's already been shown more than enough disrespect by our big mouthed medium pacer, who incidentally bottled it with the bat just when he was needed most.

As for moral high ground, I think all these kinds of incidents need to be judged individually on a case by case basis. This one for me was pushing 11 on the Beaufort scale or, if you prefer, sloppy diahorrea on the Bristol stool chart. Just behind the legendary underarm ball, which was full hurricane force/liquid faeces 💩
Click to expand...
Robinson gave him a bit of stick when he bowled him, it wasn't a big issue until the press built it up.
 
Pope has been ruled out of the rest of the Ashes series with his injured shoulder, bad luck for him. I would pick Foakes and put Root at 3 and move the others up one so Foakes takes his place after Bairstow. Sadly they are predicting Lawrence will replace Pope, that doesn't fill me with much hope.
 
hertfordseasider said:
Pope has been ruled out of the rest of the Ashes series with his injured shoulder, bad luck for him. I would pick Foakes and put Root at 3 and move the others up one so Foakes takes his place after Bairstow. Sadly they are predicting Lawrence will replace Pope, that doesn't fill me with much hope.
Click to expand...
EDIT :
My revised XI
Ducket
Bairstow
Lawrence
Root
Brook
Stokes
Foakes
A SPINNER ??????
Broad
Woods
Anderson

Odds on they will pick Crawley & not Foakes
 
XBeds-Now-Kings_Meaburn said:
EDIT :
My revised XI
Ducket
Bairstow
Lawrence
Root
Brook
Stokes
Foakes
A SPINNER ??????
Broad
Woods
Anderson

Odds on they will pick Crawley & not Foakes
Click to expand...
What’s strange is that nearly everybody would have picked Foakes for the whole series. We have lost two matches yet there is still no talk of Foakes coming in from the England camp. What has the lad done wrong🤷🏿‍♂️
 
no9 said:
What’s strange is that nearly everybody would have picked Foakes for the whole series. We have lost two matches yet there is still no talk of Foakes coming in from the England camp. What has the lad done wrong🤷🏿‍♂️
Click to expand...
XBeds-Now-Kings_Meaburn said:
EDIT :
My revised XI
Ducket
Bairstow
Lawrence
Root
Brook
Stokes
Foakes
A SPINNER ??????
Broad
Woods
Anderson

Odds on they will pick Crawley & not Foakes
Click to expand...
Lawrence is shit. I bet he's playing because he can turn his arm over with a bit of spin. Far better giving Vince the spot or pushing Bairstow up to 3 and bringing in Foakes.
 
straightatthewall said:
Lawrence is shit. I bet he's playing because he can turn his arm over with a bit of spin. Far better giving Vince the spot or pushing Bairstow up to 3 and bringing in Foakes.
Click to expand...
I agree about Foakes in, but not Bairstow at 3. He's too hot headed and if he comes in early there's a big chance he won't last.

If I was England I'd shuffle everyone up one place with Root at 3. I think they'll keep the same attack (pitch and weather dependent) keeping Robinson for his chirp. Wrong though, Wood for him if fit and conditions etc.
 
fcblackpool said:
I agree about Foakes in, but not Bairstow at 3. He's too hot headed and if he comes in early there's a big chance he won't last.

If I was England I'd shuffle everyone up one place with Root at 3. I think they'll keep the same attack (pitch and weather dependent) keeping Robinson for his chirp. Wrong though, Wood for him if fit and conditions etc.
Click to expand...
I prefer keeping Root at 4 personally. He's generally always been better there and he's our best chance of big runs. Only suggest Bairstow as they won't bring in Vince, Joe Denley or someone like Josh Bohannon. Lawrence is dog shit and it will show.
 
What would the English team do if the situation was reversed?
Would they have said, 'It's not British to run the opponent out in that way?'
Would they bollocks. they would have appealed and accepted the Umpires decision.
Bairstow was stupid to walk forward in that situation.
He threw his wicket away with not thinking the situation out.
 
Davepick said:
What would the English team do if the situation was reversed?
Would they have said, 'It's not British to run the opponent out in that way?'
Would they bollocks. they would have appealed and accepted the Umpires decision.
Bairstow was stupid to walk forward in that situation.
He threw his wicket away with not thinking the situation out.
Click to expand...
Situation reversed?

Bairstow would have missed.
 
straightatthewall said:
I prefer keeping Root at 4 personally. He's generally always been better there and he's our best chance of big runs. Only suggest Bairstow as they won't bring in Vince, Joe Denley or someone like Josh Bohannon. Lawrence is dog shit and it will show.
Click to expand...
I prefer to keep a player where he is if it's working for him, but you have to stop Bairstow keeping. How many runs does he have to score to break even with his keeping gaffs? So imo Foakes comes in and either Bairstow comes in after Stokes or drop him. Harsh and I know nobody will agree with me, but I say what I like and I like what I bloody well say.
 
fcblackpool said:
I prefer to keep a player where he is if it's working for him, but you have to stop Bairstow keeping. How many runs does he have to score to break even with his keeping gaffs? So imo Foakes comes in and either Bairstow comes in after Stokes or drop him. Harsh and I know nobody will agree with me, but I say what I like and I like what I bloody well say.
Click to expand...
Actually. I'm with you. But the selectors aren't so we may as well discuss what options they'll consider. Which looks like Lawrence. Which I think is a shit idea...
 
When I first saw the incident I thought Bairstow had jumped the gun and was lprobably out.
I haven’t played that much cricket and none for a while, but I am pretty sure most of the hard-faced sorts I came across back in the day, who I am pretty sure would have trampled over their own grandmothers just to intimidate an umpire, wouldnt have had much time for any sense of some unwritten genteel etiquette.
Maybe it shouldn’t have happened like that, but what does do is give the Aussies the chance to bash the whinging Poms, and us the chance to blame the cheating Aussies. Should be an interesting atmosphere at Headingley.

Foakes for Pope, but what to do about the bowlers. Stick or Twist?
 
Lancashire have announced that Mahmood has had a recurrence of a lumber stress factor, why is it any quick bowler we produce all break down with injuries yet the Aussies seem to just keep rolling them out and as for a left arm quickie we probably haven't had one of them since Alan Mullally in the 90's
l
'
.
,
#
 
The Bazball cabal are proving to be stubborn and will pick Lawrence. He's not good enough for test cricket so it is likely to be a wasted pick. It's clear we should go for Foakes to allow Bairstow to concentrate on walking and chewing gum at the same time - but they won't. I'd swap Jimmy or Robinson for Wood too. Probably Robinson who is too slow. Jimmy hasn't threatened as much as normal but he will restrict them and I'm refusing to accept his story is over just yet..
 
One of my good mates is an ex wicket keeper for Derbyshire (played in first team for 16 years) his summary "nowt wrong with the actions of Australia, I've done it myself"
We sound like a load of cry babies and none of us moaned when the Starc catch was given not out, which it clearly was.
 
Tangerine Rhodes said:
Lancashire have announced that Mahmood has had a recurrence of a lumber stress factor, why is it any quick bowler we produce all break down with injuries yet the Aussies seem to just keep rolling them out and as for a left arm quickie we probably haven't had one of them since Alan Mullally in the 90's
l
'
.
,
#
Click to expand...
Wasn't Sidebotham a left armer? (I know he wasn't especially quick)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top