TOPIC:

BC wrote:

At risk of being howled down by some on here, after reflection I'm starting to take the side of the Poms on Bairstow's stumping. Although the rules says he's out, we need to bear in mind he wasn't going for a run and was just wandering up the pitch towards Stokes after thinking the over had finished.

It could be considered similar to a Mankad which is much reviled by all but in those circumstances, the batter is trying to get an advantage by leaving the crease early which wasn't the case with Bairstow. I dislike the Poms as much as anyone but think they have a valid point this time as the Aussies could have given him a warning first or even called him back but chose not to.

What it does is set the scene for a very interesting third test which should make compulsive viewing.

 long , long bow but if it was me as the captain I would have called Bairstow back - sure by the absolute letter of law he was out because the ball had not left the 'keeper's hands , there would have been a pretty pointed warning given yes
but I guess his wicket meant that much

There's a thing called precedent and Bairstow had done a very very similar thing previously on a couple of occasions, their "revered" coach also did the same thing to the Lanka's, so their outrage is totally contrived to cover up for their failings on the field. The first two test have been riddled with mistakes by both teams, Australia is 2-0 up because they made a few less mistakes.

Previous wrongs don't make it right this time. Cummins would have gained a huge amount of respect in the cricket community and future collateral by calling Bairstow back. There's a difference between winning and winning at all costs.

I'm not overly fussed either way as the Poms conveniently forget 19 other of their wickets were taken during the Test with some of those out to very poor shots but it gives them the moral high ground and a support advantage to focus only on Bairstow.

Seems like Eng moral high ground is getting a hammering by the day, as folk scour social media finding all sorts of damning footage.....Bairstow in 2014 in  county game, did a Carey, and provided an interview after, stating to the effect what he did was well with in the rules , so not a problem in his eyes in regards to spirit if the game. The loudest whingers are being  quickly found out as being the worst offenders of failing to hold up the spirit of cricket....which is what actually?

BC wrote:

Previous wrongs don't make it right this time. Cummins would have gained a huge amount of respect in the cricket community and future collateral by calling Bairstow back. There's a difference between winning and winning at all costs.

I'm not overly fussed either way as the Poms conveniently forget 19 other of their wickets were taken during the Test with some of those out to very poor shots but it gives them the moral high ground and a support advantage to focus only on Bairstow.

 BC England's 85% bouncer barage in Australia's second innings was "in the spirit of the game" and not a "win at all costs" measure? They set the tone for mine.

Feezin: Has Bairstow complained about it himself? Not really. The answer to your very good question on 'the spirit of cricket' is that most captains in both countries would not have done it. Cummings has not been consistent on this question. Stokes picked the ball up many times for our fieldsmen, and yet, rightly, he never had them appeal for 'handled ball' I wonder why? 'Sprrit of cricket, me thinks?

DD wrote:

BC wrote:

Previous wrongs don't make it right this time. Cummins would have gained a huge amount of respect in the cricket community and future collateral by calling Bairstow back. There's a difference between winning and winning at all costs.

I'm not overly fussed either way as the Poms conveniently forget 19 other of their wickets were taken during the Test with some of those out to very poor shots but it gives them the moral high ground and a support advantage to focus only on Bairstow.

 BC England's 85% bouncer barage in Australia's second innings was "in the spirit of the game" and not a "win at all costs" measure? They set the tone for mine.

Yes...good point DD.  I think the umpiring has been pretty ordinary in this series so far with quite a few decisions overturned by video replay.  The bumper barrage to which you're referring wasn't a great spectacle and the umps could have called more wides and no balls for both teams to bring it back into line but chose not to for reason unknown other than they were out of their depth.

What, I would say too, is  that sometimes teams appoint the wrong coaches, which is certainly true in this case with England. See my previous posts on this question. He is suited to one-day cricket. You can't just tell Crawley he can play and expect success. He did the same with Guptill in NZ and he never made it in test cricket.  In relation to the keeper, there is a reason he has never captained a team seriously, because, again, he is unsuited to the role. Given England's propensity to change captains mid series over the years, the coach could go pretty quickly. If it was good enough for Botham to resign, other people should not be special treatment. 

BC wrote:

DD wrote:

BC wrote:

Previous wrongs don't make it right this time. Cummins would have gained a huge amount of respect in the cricket community and future collateral by calling Bairstow back. There's a difference between winning and winning at all costs.

I'm not overly fussed either way as the Poms conveniently forget 19 other of their wickets were taken during the Test with some of those out to very poor shots but it gives them the moral high ground and a support advantage to focus only on Bairstow.

 BC England's 85% bouncer barage in Australia's second innings was "in the spirit of the game" and not a "win at all costs" measure? They set the tone for mine.

Yes...good point DD.  I think the umpiring has been pretty ordinary in this series so far with quite a few decisions overturned by video replay.  The bumper barrage to which you're referring wasn't a great spectacle and the umps could have called more wides and no balls for both teams to bring it back into line but chose not to for reason unknown other than they were out of their depth.

Yep they should have had a conference between overs and then warn Stokes any more than 2 short pitched deliveries per over will be called no ball regardless whether they are above the shoulder or not and that would have applied to Australia in the second innings too. 

Loaded leg side fieids and almost exclusive short pitched deliveries made for a boring spectacle and both sides reluctant to take the new ball knowing the old ball wasn't coming onto the bat. Fair enough if you are bowling your spinners.

Will be interesting to see how they adjudicate in the 3rd test if either side employs the same tactics. The Lord's test was Bradman Bodyline series Mkll. 

What the Australians need to do now is block all the external noise and focus on the task at hand. They can take all the air out of this outrage balloon by winning the ashes at Headingly. They were by far the better team at Lords and only the Stokes pyrotechnics got England so close. I think England were in front for most of the Edgbaston test and that 9th wicket stand between Lyon and Cummins pinched it.

There is not much between the two sides, particularly now with Lyon out, so Australia need to bat long in the first innings at Headingly to stifle the momentum that has been built up by the English outrage. Probably the dumbest thing I have seen over the last few days has been that the clueless Prime Ministers of both countries have seen a need to get involved as if it was some sort of international incident FFS!  Surely both of them have more pressing matters to attend to but you always get politicians trying to surf on a populist issue to improve their image.

The weather looks OK for the first three days but there may be some showers on days 4 and 5 which could be handy if the game is going England's way. Remember we only need a draw to retain the ashes but I hope the Aussies don't go into day 1 thinking draw because that can lead to trouble against an aggressive and now very motivated (angry?) opposition.