comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 22 minutes ago
Jonathan Agnew, he played the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hardly - well at least not at international level anyway. He had 3 test caps for England ffs. Hardly put him up there with Atherton - but fine you’ve found another one well done. What are you up to now - 5? 3 journalists and a couple of ex cricketers
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 2 minutes ago
Any comments about the two sandpaper cheats, Smith and Warner.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Time served. You seem to be applying the principal of once a cheat, always a cheat. If that's your view, then they should've been handed lifetime bans.
Was it them involved in yesterday's incident? Or does the fact they are on the same team mean they cheated by association?
And since you're asking for feedback, how about the question regarding England's short bowling? I don't really know the game, but the excerpt I posted says that doing so for extended periods (like, I presume, 99% of a session) is not in the spirit of the game.
Is that link incorrect?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My viewpoint is it's acceptable to batters, not bowlers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"...the next 51 overs were a constant supply of short balls (98%, said CricViz) that returned eight wickets for 126 runs."
Those were the last 8 wickets, some bowlers included then.
So even by your own subjective yardstick, England did not bowl within the spirit of the game, right?
comment by Arctic Monkey (U14534)
posted 10 hours, 39 minutes ago
comment by St3vie (U11028)
posted 2 minutes ago
Football is happy to let players berate officials and shout and bawl at them when they don't agree with their calls....but at the end of the day, football does not give players or managers the tools to get a referees decision to be analysed using technology and possibly get it overturned
Cricket doesn't want it's players to be berating officials and shouting and bawling at them when they don't agree with them.....but it will give them the tools to get an umpires call reviewed, so cricketers don't need to shout and bawl at officials in order to take them to task
Cricket captains can get an on field decision looked at if they don't agree with it, and it can be reversed through a process that they initiated...you can get yourself tied up in knots around the semantics of how I have made this point all you want, we all know what that constitutes
Can talk about this spirit of the game crap all you want...but your sport allows for officials to be questioned through official channels during a game by players....and sees things within the rules as unsporting
It's a fcking joke
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you haven't got it the first 3 times, you won't get it on the 4th........ Keep waffling though
It is amusing you think there's more sportsmanship in football than cricket though
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I dont think there is more sportsmanship in football than there is in cricket
Point I'm making is, cricket gets its knickers in a twist over players doing things that are perfectly within the rules........all under this umbrella that it's a gentlemen's game...while at the same time, they let players openly question an umpires call and give them the opportunity to see if it can get overturned, while other sports, like football, that don't "pride themselves" on being pillars of gentlemanly conduct and all that $hite like cricket does...... they flat out refuse to let players or managers dictate when the officials can be questioned.
It's pure hypocrisy, and it's a point that is constantly flying over your head
If cricket is to be a pillar of sportsmanship, why not allow the officials to do their job without question, and why not let players so things that are perfectly acceptable and well within the rules, without caning them for it?
Even this stuff with mankadding
I have seen several examples of it, and almost every time, the non striker is given warnings that if you continue doing that, I'm gonna catch you out
The guy just needs to stay behind the line, it's pretty fcking basic....if they do that's all this "spirit of the game" nonsense is wholly non applicable
How is stealing a few yards sportmanslike and why is it held in high regards as opposed to bowlers letting batsmen get away with it once or twice being good sports, but deciding enough is enough at some point
It's fcking madness
How could he be ‘stealing a few yards’? The over had finished
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 1 minute ago
How could he be ‘stealing a few yards’? The over had finished
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not talking about the Bairstow incident above I'm talking about mankadding
All Bairstow has to do is wait a few seconds until the umpire calls over before he goes anywhere....is he in that much of a rush to go and speak to his team mate?
Again....it's so basic, it's unreal
comment by St3vie (U11028)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 1 minute ago
How could he be ‘stealing a few yards’? The over had finished
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not talking about the Bairstow incident above I'm talking about mankadding
All Bairstow has to do is wait a few seconds until the umpire calls over before he goes anywhere....is he in that much of a rush to go and speak to his team mate?
Again....it's so basic, it's unreal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not basic at all. It was the last ball of the over, as everyone knew. He was not stealing a run, nor to gain any advantage at all. As my first post
Yes he was legally out. But it was mean.
comment by St3vie (U11028)
posted 13 minutes ago
Even this stuff with mankadding
I have seen several examples of it, and almost every time, the non striker is given warnings that if you continue doing that, I'm gonna catch you out
The guy just needs to stay behind the line, it's pretty fcking basic....if they do that's all this "spirit of the game" nonsense is wholly non applicable
How is stealing a few yards sportmanslike and why is it held in high regards as opposed to bowlers letting batsmen get away with it once or twice being good sports, but deciding enough is enough at some point
It's fcking madness
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But Bairstow wasn't armed as far as I'm aware.
The most basic thing is that cricket is a game. Not life and death, so it can still include sportsmanship, which seems to be sneered at as BS.
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 56 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 2 minutes ago
Any comments about the two sandpaper cheats, Smith and Warner.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Time served. You seem to be applying the principal of once a cheat, always a cheat. If that's your view, then they should've been handed lifetime bans.
Was it them involved in yesterday's incident? Or does the fact they are on the same team mean they cheated by association?
And since you're asking for feedback, how about the question regarding England's short bowling? I don't really know the game, but the excerpt I posted says that doing so for extended periods (like, I presume, 99% of a session) is not in the spirit of the game.
Is that link incorrect?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My viewpoint is it's acceptable to batters, not bowlers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"...the next 51 overs were a constant supply of short balls (98%, said CricViz) that returned eight wickets for 126 runs."
Those were the last 8 wickets, some bowlers included then.
So even by your own subjective yardstick, England did not bowl within the spirit of the game, right?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh definitely. But there is a bit of ttitt for tat, no?
Australia too used short pitched balls to bowlers, including Anderson, probably the worst batsman on either side who got a blow to the head.
comment by 99 Problems (but Rodgers ain’t one) (U12353)
posted 1 hour, 7 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 22 minutes ago
Jonathan Agnew, he played the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hardly - well at least not at international level anyway. He had 3 test caps for England ffs. Hardly put him up there with Atherton - but fine you’ve found another one well done. What are you up to now - 5? 3 journalists and a couple of ex cricketers
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Disappointing for you it's not 100%
Brad Hogg, ex Aussie player, didn't like it.
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by St3vie (U11028)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 1 minute ago
How could he be ‘stealing a few yards’? The over had finished
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not talking about the Bairstow incident above I'm talking about mankadding
All Bairstow has to do is wait a few seconds until the umpire calls over before he goes anywhere....is he in that much of a rush to go and speak to his team mate?
Again....it's so basic, it's unreal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not basic at all. It was the last ball of the over, as everyone knew. He was not stealing a run, nor to gain any advantage at all. As my first post
Yes he was legally out. But it was mean.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What baffles me is how much of a disregard people like you have for the rules of the game...crying sportsmanship when players have shown a complete disregard for them, and been caught out
Carey had seen Bairstow show this disregard as to whether the ball was still live or not, so he instinctively threw the ball at the stumps, he didn't sneakily wait for a few seconds or thay, it was pretty much all in one motion, and he caught the ball and threw it back, catching Bairstow out because he had a very lax attitude to where the ball was or whether it was live or dead
These are international level sportsmen, that are taught at a childhood level, that you should always check where the ball is and make sure it is not still live.
If Carey had let the ball slip through him, the ball would still have been love and there would have been an opportunity for England to nick a single...Bairstow didn't even look round for a single second to see where the ball was, he just assumed it was dead, yet nothing was signalled.
100% Bairstows own fault, nothing dodgy about what happened
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by 99 Problems (but Rodgers ain’t one) (U12353)
posted 1 hour, 7 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 22 minutes ago
Jonathan Agnew, he played the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hardly - well at least not at international level anyway. He had 3 test caps for England ffs. Hardly put him up there with Atherton - but fine you’ve found another one well done. What are you up to now - 5? 3 journalists and a couple of ex cricketers
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Disappointing for you it's not 100%
Brad Hogg, ex Aussie player, didn't like it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not really because I never made out it was 100%
Christ your thick
comment by 99 Problems (but Rodgers ain’t one) (U12353)
posted 1 second ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by 99 Problems (but Rodgers ain’t one) (U12353)
posted 1 hour, 7 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 22 minutes ago
Jonathan Agnew, he played the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hardly - well at least not at international level anyway. He had 3 test caps for England ffs. Hardly put him up there with Atherton - but fine you’ve found another one well done. What are you up to now - 5? 3 journalists and a couple of ex cricketers
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Disappointing for you it's not 100%
Brad Hogg, ex Aussie player, didn't like it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not really because I never made out it was 100%
Christ your thick
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In fact im being thick now - it’s ‘you’re’. It’s contagious
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 56 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 2 minutes ago
Any comments about the two sandpaper cheats, Smith and Warner.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Time served. You seem to be applying the principal of once a cheat, always a cheat. If that's your view, then they should've been handed lifetime bans.
Was it them involved in yesterday's incident? Or does the fact they are on the same team mean they cheated by association?
And since you're asking for feedback, how about the question regarding England's short bowling? I don't really know the game, but the excerpt I posted says that doing so for extended periods (like, I presume, 99% of a session) is not in the spirit of the game.
Is that link incorrect?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My viewpoint is it's acceptable to batters, not bowlers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"...the next 51 overs were a constant supply of short balls (98%, said CricViz) that returned eight wickets for 126 runs."
Those were the last 8 wickets, some bowlers included then.
So even by your own subjective yardstick, England did not bowl within the spirit of the game, right?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh definitely. But there is a bit of ttitt for tat, no?
Australia too used short pitched balls to bowlers, including Anderson, probably the worst batsman on either side who got a blow to the head.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As I stated, I'm not an expert myself, so I can only go on what you and others are telling me and what I'm reading elsewhere, but I think there's enough in what I'm seeing to build the case. Here's a bit more stuff I just picked up:
"Pretty much every ball after lunch was banged in - 98% according to Sky's coverage - and it continued even when a lame Nathan Lyon hobbled out to the middle and was clearly going to struggle with anything aimed at his stumps."
"As Australia's second innings wound down, the conflicting emotions about whether any of this was good, interesting, helpful or even legal - given at times there were more than two shoulder-height balls per over - raged on"
https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/men-s-ashes-2nd-test-lords-england-succeed-with-bouncer-barrage-but-at-what-cost-1385308
What I seem to be hearing from you and others is it's fair if it's not a sustained approach ... if there's 51 consecutive overs of it, it's stil ok if not aimed at bowlers ... if it includes all of the bowlers in the lineup it's still ok, and if one of those bowlers is a lame duck who can barely stand, then it's still ok if it's a case of natural escalation... the (English) writer above goes as far as saying t bowling was actually rule-breaking at times, rather than just outside the spirit.
So it appears that this spirit thing is actually quite mobile, and can even extend beyond actually breaking the rules.
What really seems to be the case is that there's plenty of gamesmanship going on and plenty of bending the spirit argument to suit, and that teams put in an awful lot of performative theatricality to make out they've been wronged.
The bottom line, I suppose, is that there'll always be arguments made depending on what side you're on. It doesn't really seem in this case what's really incensed people is so much a question of the spirit itself -which from the above seems to be a flag of convenience that can be waved around and then moved as appropriate.
Perhaps the really annoying part is how rare and unexpected the type of run out was and the timing of it, just when England sensed they were back in with a chance in a test that at many points had seemed completely lost.
I suggest some of you listen to Steve Harmison on TalkSport this morning
In short.....Bairstows own fault
He left his crease...he did it a 3-4 times, Carey noticed it...threw the ball at the stumps and got him out because of it
Harmison even goes as far as saying Bairstow did almost the exact same thing to Steve Smith in 2019
comment by 99 Problems (but Rodgers ain’t one) (U12353)
posted 26 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by 99 Problems (but Rodgers ain’t one) (U12353)
posted 1 hour, 7 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 22 minutes ago
Jonathan Agnew, he played the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hardly - well at least not at international level anyway. He had 3 test caps for England ffs. Hardly put him up there with Atherton - but fine you’ve found another one well done. What are you up to now - 5? 3 journalists and a couple of ex cricketers
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Disappointing for you it's not 100%
Brad Hogg, ex Aussie player, didn't like it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not really because I never made out it was 100%
Christ your thick
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Luckily not çompared to you.
Blackstarr, why so abusive? Surely you can defend your corner without resorting to insults, they don't add any weight to your argument.
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 23 minutes ago
Blackstarr, why so abusive? Surely you can defend your corner without resorting to insults, they don't add any weight to your argument.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Calling someone thick for failing to see the obvious when he has literally repeated the same argument 20 times isn’t abusive
If anything it’s a kindness…..
let me draw this out for you with crayons
literally insane
cretin
thick head
you sound like you’ve gone in for a lobotomy
... all aimed at the same poster, who has been perfectly respectful all along ... and I'm only half-way through the thread!
Poor.
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 28 minutes ago
let me draw this out for you with crayons
literally insane
cretin
thick head
you sound like you’ve gone in for a lobotomy
... all aimed at the same poster, who has been perfectly respectful all along ... and I'm only half-way through the thread!
Poor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But absolutely fair. The guy has an issue listening to people, ignores counter-arguments and then repeats the same argument over and again. I couldn’t give a toss about being respectful to someone that annoying
comment by #4zA Napul3 (U22472)
posted 22 hours, 6 minutes ago
comment by 99 Problems (but Rodgers ain’t one) (U12353)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by 99 Problems (but Rodgers ain’t one) (U12353)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by 99 Problems (but Rodgers ain’t one) (U12353)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 23 seconds ago
comment by 99 Problems (but Rodgers ain’t one) (U12353)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 1 minute ago
It wasn't cheating, the umpire had to give him out.
But despite what another poster say there is a ' spirit of the game' and it was a mean minded action, and they should at least be ashamed instead of celebrating.
And I would feel exactly the same if England did it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It wasn’t a mean minded action at all. It was very very switched on while Bairstow once again wasn’t concentrating. It’s smart cricket. I’ve seen the odd goal in football where the keeper was holding the ball on his palm without 2 hands on the ball waiting to take a goal kick and the striker nods the ball out of his hand and scores. While that’s very rare in football, it’s perfectly legit and the keeper isn’t switched on to the rules - the striker is
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not particularly bothered about it, but it was definitely a cheap shot. Baird tow was doing what batsmen do all the time, having a wander down the wicket after he believed the ball to be dead. He wasn’t looking to nick a single or gain anything from it.
I don’t care what you say, it was very unsportsmanlike.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It wasn’t. It was once again utterly dopey from Bairstow who has plenty of form for this. He’s been run out before for forgetting to ground his bat remember? He doesn’t seem to remember the basics - I can’t remember any other cricketer who has given another side that kind of easy stumping opportunity recently.
The umpire calls ‘over’ after both sides believe the ball is dead. You don’t ever assume it is and wander out your crease. Atherton has said it’s naive, Morgan has said it’s naive as have other commentators
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's within the laws. But it was unsporting.
Do you remember the underarm controversy, Aus vs NZ.
NZ needed a six to win a one day match, the captain told the bowler to bowl it underarm.
Not against the laws, switched on ? You decide
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Neither is unsporting. It’s what you do within the laws to make sure you win the game. This whole ‘unsporting’ nonsense is an issue the English seem to have. They tend to put unsporting on the same level as cheating at times. Perhaps it’s one of the reasons we underachieve at international sport in so many areas.
The laws of the game are black and white. You play to them. You play to win. Nothing else matters
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing else matters to you, so we will have to differ.
Of course there isn't a law banning that underarm ball, because they didn't think it would happen, but sadly it did. And yes, there is definitely unsporting behaviour, because you don't recognise it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Having a free kick in football, the taker decides to hit it as hard as possible at the star man. Not against the rules, just smart play?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The point I’m making is OTHER nations don’t recognise it either. It’s an English problem. It’s part of our culture and we walk onto the international sports stage arrogantly expecting everyone else to abide by our sense of fair play because we invented the game. It’s ridiculous.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lol
Its not a english thing only
In baseball, sportmanship is v important butt this incident is nuthin about sportmanship
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaking of baseball, common tactic to fake throw and then tag runner when he moves off base. Considered smart play and poor awareness from the runner.
comment by Don Draper's dandruff (U20155)
posted 19 hours, 53 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 minutes ago
It was the fact it was the end of an over, the time where a batsman leaves the crease to talk to the other batsman.
A prescedent has been set now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
you'll now see batsmen religiously sticking to their ground at the end of each over, adding c. 10 seconds to each one, meaning that each day will be extended by c. 15 minutes, or, in practice, that 3-4 more overs a day will be lost and never recovered.
that should bring in the crowds.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Utter nonsense, 5 seconds at most, and it will come out of their chat.
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 1 hour, 34 minutes ago
let me draw this out for you with crayons
literally insane
cretin
thick head
you sound like you’ve gone in for a lobotomy
... all aimed at the same poster, who has been perfectly respectful all along ... and I'm only half-way through the thread!
Poor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This pretty par for the course. The main ashes thread is full of people implying aussies in general are morally bankrupt or unethical due to their heritage.
if england werent throwing almost every wicket away losing them another ashes series i doubt much of a deal would be made of it as is.
Sign in if you want to comment
Bairstow "run out"
Page 10 of 11
7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11
posted on 3/7/23
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 22 minutes ago
Jonathan Agnew, he played the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hardly - well at least not at international level anyway. He had 3 test caps for England ffs. Hardly put him up there with Atherton - but fine you’ve found another one well done. What are you up to now - 5? 3 journalists and a couple of ex cricketers
posted on 3/7/23
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 2 minutes ago
Any comments about the two sandpaper cheats, Smith and Warner.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Time served. You seem to be applying the principal of once a cheat, always a cheat. If that's your view, then they should've been handed lifetime bans.
Was it them involved in yesterday's incident? Or does the fact they are on the same team mean they cheated by association?
And since you're asking for feedback, how about the question regarding England's short bowling? I don't really know the game, but the excerpt I posted says that doing so for extended periods (like, I presume, 99% of a session) is not in the spirit of the game.
Is that link incorrect?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My viewpoint is it's acceptable to batters, not bowlers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"...the next 51 overs were a constant supply of short balls (98%, said CricViz) that returned eight wickets for 126 runs."
Those were the last 8 wickets, some bowlers included then.
So even by your own subjective yardstick, England did not bowl within the spirit of the game, right?
posted on 3/7/23
comment by Arctic Monkey (U14534)
posted 10 hours, 39 minutes ago
comment by St3vie (U11028)
posted 2 minutes ago
Football is happy to let players berate officials and shout and bawl at them when they don't agree with their calls....but at the end of the day, football does not give players or managers the tools to get a referees decision to be analysed using technology and possibly get it overturned
Cricket doesn't want it's players to be berating officials and shouting and bawling at them when they don't agree with them.....but it will give them the tools to get an umpires call reviewed, so cricketers don't need to shout and bawl at officials in order to take them to task
Cricket captains can get an on field decision looked at if they don't agree with it, and it can be reversed through a process that they initiated...you can get yourself tied up in knots around the semantics of how I have made this point all you want, we all know what that constitutes
Can talk about this spirit of the game crap all you want...but your sport allows for officials to be questioned through official channels during a game by players....and sees things within the rules as unsporting
It's a fcking joke
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you haven't got it the first 3 times, you won't get it on the 4th........ Keep waffling though
It is amusing you think there's more sportsmanship in football than cricket though
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I dont think there is more sportsmanship in football than there is in cricket
Point I'm making is, cricket gets its knickers in a twist over players doing things that are perfectly within the rules........all under this umbrella that it's a gentlemen's game...while at the same time, they let players openly question an umpires call and give them the opportunity to see if it can get overturned, while other sports, like football, that don't "pride themselves" on being pillars of gentlemanly conduct and all that $hite like cricket does...... they flat out refuse to let players or managers dictate when the officials can be questioned.
It's pure hypocrisy, and it's a point that is constantly flying over your head
If cricket is to be a pillar of sportsmanship, why not allow the officials to do their job without question, and why not let players so things that are perfectly acceptable and well within the rules, without caning them for it?
posted on 3/7/23
Even this stuff with mankadding
I have seen several examples of it, and almost every time, the non striker is given warnings that if you continue doing that, I'm gonna catch you out
The guy just needs to stay behind the line, it's pretty fcking basic....if they do that's all this "spirit of the game" nonsense is wholly non applicable
How is stealing a few yards sportmanslike and why is it held in high regards as opposed to bowlers letting batsmen get away with it once or twice being good sports, but deciding enough is enough at some point
It's fcking madness
posted on 3/7/23
How could he be ‘stealing a few yards’? The over had finished
posted on 3/7/23
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 1 minute ago
How could he be ‘stealing a few yards’? The over had finished
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not talking about the Bairstow incident above I'm talking about mankadding
All Bairstow has to do is wait a few seconds until the umpire calls over before he goes anywhere....is he in that much of a rush to go and speak to his team mate?
Again....it's so basic, it's unreal
posted on 3/7/23
comment by St3vie (U11028)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 1 minute ago
How could he be ‘stealing a few yards’? The over had finished
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not talking about the Bairstow incident above I'm talking about mankadding
All Bairstow has to do is wait a few seconds until the umpire calls over before he goes anywhere....is he in that much of a rush to go and speak to his team mate?
Again....it's so basic, it's unreal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not basic at all. It was the last ball of the over, as everyone knew. He was not stealing a run, nor to gain any advantage at all. As my first post
Yes he was legally out. But it was mean.
posted on 3/7/23
comment by St3vie (U11028)
posted 13 minutes ago
Even this stuff with mankadding
I have seen several examples of it, and almost every time, the non striker is given warnings that if you continue doing that, I'm gonna catch you out
The guy just needs to stay behind the line, it's pretty fcking basic....if they do that's all this "spirit of the game" nonsense is wholly non applicable
How is stealing a few yards sportmanslike and why is it held in high regards as opposed to bowlers letting batsmen get away with it once or twice being good sports, but deciding enough is enough at some point
It's fcking madness
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But Bairstow wasn't armed as far as I'm aware.
The most basic thing is that cricket is a game. Not life and death, so it can still include sportsmanship, which seems to be sneered at as BS.
posted on 3/7/23
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 56 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 2 minutes ago
Any comments about the two sandpaper cheats, Smith and Warner.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Time served. You seem to be applying the principal of once a cheat, always a cheat. If that's your view, then they should've been handed lifetime bans.
Was it them involved in yesterday's incident? Or does the fact they are on the same team mean they cheated by association?
And since you're asking for feedback, how about the question regarding England's short bowling? I don't really know the game, but the excerpt I posted says that doing so for extended periods (like, I presume, 99% of a session) is not in the spirit of the game.
Is that link incorrect?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My viewpoint is it's acceptable to batters, not bowlers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"...the next 51 overs were a constant supply of short balls (98%, said CricViz) that returned eight wickets for 126 runs."
Those were the last 8 wickets, some bowlers included then.
So even by your own subjective yardstick, England did not bowl within the spirit of the game, right?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh definitely. But there is a bit of ttitt for tat, no?
Australia too used short pitched balls to bowlers, including Anderson, probably the worst batsman on either side who got a blow to the head.
posted on 3/7/23
comment by 99 Problems (but Rodgers ain’t one) (U12353)
posted 1 hour, 7 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 22 minutes ago
Jonathan Agnew, he played the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hardly - well at least not at international level anyway. He had 3 test caps for England ffs. Hardly put him up there with Atherton - but fine you’ve found another one well done. What are you up to now - 5? 3 journalists and a couple of ex cricketers
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Disappointing for you it's not 100%
Brad Hogg, ex Aussie player, didn't like it.
posted on 3/7/23
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by St3vie (U11028)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 1 minute ago
How could he be ‘stealing a few yards’? The over had finished
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not talking about the Bairstow incident above I'm talking about mankadding
All Bairstow has to do is wait a few seconds until the umpire calls over before he goes anywhere....is he in that much of a rush to go and speak to his team mate?
Again....it's so basic, it's unreal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not basic at all. It was the last ball of the over, as everyone knew. He was not stealing a run, nor to gain any advantage at all. As my first post
Yes he was legally out. But it was mean.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What baffles me is how much of a disregard people like you have for the rules of the game...crying sportsmanship when players have shown a complete disregard for them, and been caught out
Carey had seen Bairstow show this disregard as to whether the ball was still live or not, so he instinctively threw the ball at the stumps, he didn't sneakily wait for a few seconds or thay, it was pretty much all in one motion, and he caught the ball and threw it back, catching Bairstow out because he had a very lax attitude to where the ball was or whether it was live or dead
These are international level sportsmen, that are taught at a childhood level, that you should always check where the ball is and make sure it is not still live.
If Carey had let the ball slip through him, the ball would still have been love and there would have been an opportunity for England to nick a single...Bairstow didn't even look round for a single second to see where the ball was, he just assumed it was dead, yet nothing was signalled.
100% Bairstows own fault, nothing dodgy about what happened
posted on 3/7/23
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by 99 Problems (but Rodgers ain’t one) (U12353)
posted 1 hour, 7 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 22 minutes ago
Jonathan Agnew, he played the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hardly - well at least not at international level anyway. He had 3 test caps for England ffs. Hardly put him up there with Atherton - but fine you’ve found another one well done. What are you up to now - 5? 3 journalists and a couple of ex cricketers
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Disappointing for you it's not 100%
Brad Hogg, ex Aussie player, didn't like it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not really because I never made out it was 100%
Christ your thick
posted on 3/7/23
comment by 99 Problems (but Rodgers ain’t one) (U12353)
posted 1 second ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by 99 Problems (but Rodgers ain’t one) (U12353)
posted 1 hour, 7 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 22 minutes ago
Jonathan Agnew, he played the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hardly - well at least not at international level anyway. He had 3 test caps for England ffs. Hardly put him up there with Atherton - but fine you’ve found another one well done. What are you up to now - 5? 3 journalists and a couple of ex cricketers
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Disappointing for you it's not 100%
Brad Hogg, ex Aussie player, didn't like it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not really because I never made out it was 100%
Christ your thick
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In fact im being thick now - it’s ‘you’re’. It’s contagious
posted on 3/7/23
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 56 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 2 minutes ago
Any comments about the two sandpaper cheats, Smith and Warner.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Time served. You seem to be applying the principal of once a cheat, always a cheat. If that's your view, then they should've been handed lifetime bans.
Was it them involved in yesterday's incident? Or does the fact they are on the same team mean they cheated by association?
And since you're asking for feedback, how about the question regarding England's short bowling? I don't really know the game, but the excerpt I posted says that doing so for extended periods (like, I presume, 99% of a session) is not in the spirit of the game.
Is that link incorrect?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My viewpoint is it's acceptable to batters, not bowlers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"...the next 51 overs were a constant supply of short balls (98%, said CricViz) that returned eight wickets for 126 runs."
Those were the last 8 wickets, some bowlers included then.
So even by your own subjective yardstick, England did not bowl within the spirit of the game, right?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh definitely. But there is a bit of ttitt for tat, no?
Australia too used short pitched balls to bowlers, including Anderson, probably the worst batsman on either side who got a blow to the head.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As I stated, I'm not an expert myself, so I can only go on what you and others are telling me and what I'm reading elsewhere, but I think there's enough in what I'm seeing to build the case. Here's a bit more stuff I just picked up:
"Pretty much every ball after lunch was banged in - 98% according to Sky's coverage - and it continued even when a lame Nathan Lyon hobbled out to the middle and was clearly going to struggle with anything aimed at his stumps."
"As Australia's second innings wound down, the conflicting emotions about whether any of this was good, interesting, helpful or even legal - given at times there were more than two shoulder-height balls per over - raged on"
https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/men-s-ashes-2nd-test-lords-england-succeed-with-bouncer-barrage-but-at-what-cost-1385308
What I seem to be hearing from you and others is it's fair if it's not a sustained approach ... if there's 51 consecutive overs of it, it's stil ok if not aimed at bowlers ... if it includes all of the bowlers in the lineup it's still ok, and if one of those bowlers is a lame duck who can barely stand, then it's still ok if it's a case of natural escalation... the (English) writer above goes as far as saying t bowling was actually rule-breaking at times, rather than just outside the spirit.
So it appears that this spirit thing is actually quite mobile, and can even extend beyond actually breaking the rules.
What really seems to be the case is that there's plenty of gamesmanship going on and plenty of bending the spirit argument to suit, and that teams put in an awful lot of performative theatricality to make out they've been wronged.
The bottom line, I suppose, is that there'll always be arguments made depending on what side you're on. It doesn't really seem in this case what's really incensed people is so much a question of the spirit itself -which from the above seems to be a flag of convenience that can be waved around and then moved as appropriate.
Perhaps the really annoying part is how rare and unexpected the type of run out was and the timing of it, just when England sensed they were back in with a chance in a test that at many points had seemed completely lost.
posted on 3/7/23
I suggest some of you listen to Steve Harmison on TalkSport this morning
In short.....Bairstows own fault
He left his crease...he did it a 3-4 times, Carey noticed it...threw the ball at the stumps and got him out because of it
Harmison even goes as far as saying Bairstow did almost the exact same thing to Steve Smith in 2019
posted on 3/7/23
comment by 99 Problems (but Rodgers ain’t one) (U12353)
posted 26 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by 99 Problems (but Rodgers ain’t one) (U12353)
posted 1 hour, 7 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 22 minutes ago
Jonathan Agnew, he played the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hardly - well at least not at international level anyway. He had 3 test caps for England ffs. Hardly put him up there with Atherton - but fine you’ve found another one well done. What are you up to now - 5? 3 journalists and a couple of ex cricketers
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Disappointing for you it's not 100%
Brad Hogg, ex Aussie player, didn't like it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not really because I never made out it was 100%
Christ your thick
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Luckily not çompared to you.
posted on 3/7/23
Blackstarr, why so abusive? Surely you can defend your corner without resorting to insults, they don't add any weight to your argument.
posted on 3/7/23
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 23 minutes ago
Blackstarr, why so abusive? Surely you can defend your corner without resorting to insults, they don't add any weight to your argument.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Calling someone thick for failing to see the obvious when he has literally repeated the same argument 20 times isn’t abusive
posted on 3/7/23
If anything it’s a kindness…..
posted on 3/7/23
let me draw this out for you with crayons
literally insane
cretin
thick head
you sound like you’ve gone in for a lobotomy
... all aimed at the same poster, who has been perfectly respectful all along ... and I'm only half-way through the thread!
Poor.
posted on 3/7/23
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 28 minutes ago
let me draw this out for you with crayons
literally insane
cretin
thick head
you sound like you’ve gone in for a lobotomy
... all aimed at the same poster, who has been perfectly respectful all along ... and I'm only half-way through the thread!
Poor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But absolutely fair. The guy has an issue listening to people, ignores counter-arguments and then repeats the same argument over and again. I couldn’t give a toss about being respectful to someone that annoying
posted on 3/7/23
comment by #4zA Napul3 (U22472)
posted 22 hours, 6 minutes ago
comment by 99 Problems (but Rodgers ain’t one) (U12353)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by 99 Problems (but Rodgers ain’t one) (U12353)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by 99 Problems (but Rodgers ain’t one) (U12353)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 23 seconds ago
comment by 99 Problems (but Rodgers ain’t one) (U12353)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 1 minute ago
It wasn't cheating, the umpire had to give him out.
But despite what another poster say there is a ' spirit of the game' and it was a mean minded action, and they should at least be ashamed instead of celebrating.
And I would feel exactly the same if England did it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It wasn’t a mean minded action at all. It was very very switched on while Bairstow once again wasn’t concentrating. It’s smart cricket. I’ve seen the odd goal in football where the keeper was holding the ball on his palm without 2 hands on the ball waiting to take a goal kick and the striker nods the ball out of his hand and scores. While that’s very rare in football, it’s perfectly legit and the keeper isn’t switched on to the rules - the striker is
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not particularly bothered about it, but it was definitely a cheap shot. Baird tow was doing what batsmen do all the time, having a wander down the wicket after he believed the ball to be dead. He wasn’t looking to nick a single or gain anything from it.
I don’t care what you say, it was very unsportsmanlike.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It wasn’t. It was once again utterly dopey from Bairstow who has plenty of form for this. He’s been run out before for forgetting to ground his bat remember? He doesn’t seem to remember the basics - I can’t remember any other cricketer who has given another side that kind of easy stumping opportunity recently.
The umpire calls ‘over’ after both sides believe the ball is dead. You don’t ever assume it is and wander out your crease. Atherton has said it’s naive, Morgan has said it’s naive as have other commentators
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's within the laws. But it was unsporting.
Do you remember the underarm controversy, Aus vs NZ.
NZ needed a six to win a one day match, the captain told the bowler to bowl it underarm.
Not against the laws, switched on ? You decide
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Neither is unsporting. It’s what you do within the laws to make sure you win the game. This whole ‘unsporting’ nonsense is an issue the English seem to have. They tend to put unsporting on the same level as cheating at times. Perhaps it’s one of the reasons we underachieve at international sport in so many areas.
The laws of the game are black and white. You play to them. You play to win. Nothing else matters
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing else matters to you, so we will have to differ.
Of course there isn't a law banning that underarm ball, because they didn't think it would happen, but sadly it did. And yes, there is definitely unsporting behaviour, because you don't recognise it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Having a free kick in football, the taker decides to hit it as hard as possible at the star man. Not against the rules, just smart play?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The point I’m making is OTHER nations don’t recognise it either. It’s an English problem. It’s part of our culture and we walk onto the international sports stage arrogantly expecting everyone else to abide by our sense of fair play because we invented the game. It’s ridiculous.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lol
Its not a english thing only
In baseball, sportmanship is v important butt this incident is nuthin about sportmanship
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaking of baseball, common tactic to fake throw and then tag runner when he moves off base. Considered smart play and poor awareness from the runner.
posted on 3/7/23
comment by Don Draper's dandruff (U20155)
posted 19 hours, 53 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 minutes ago
It was the fact it was the end of an over, the time where a batsman leaves the crease to talk to the other batsman.
A prescedent has been set now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
you'll now see batsmen religiously sticking to their ground at the end of each over, adding c. 10 seconds to each one, meaning that each day will be extended by c. 15 minutes, or, in practice, that 3-4 more overs a day will be lost and never recovered.
that should bring in the crowds.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Utter nonsense, 5 seconds at most, and it will come out of their chat.
posted on 3/7/23
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 1 hour, 34 minutes ago
let me draw this out for you with crayons
literally insane
cretin
thick head
you sound like you’ve gone in for a lobotomy
... all aimed at the same poster, who has been perfectly respectful all along ... and I'm only half-way through the thread!
Poor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This pretty par for the course. The main ashes thread is full of people implying aussies in general are morally bankrupt or unethical due to their heritage.
posted on 3/7/23
if england werent throwing almost every wicket away losing them another ashes series i doubt much of a deal would be made of it as is.
Page 10 of 11
7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11