England v Australia, 2nd Test, Lords, 28 June - 2 July, 2023

‘brilliant work by Jonny Bsirstow’


link didn’t work ... Bairstow stumping Samit Patel

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoYJunuz7PI

Lost Wombat wrote:

skully wrote:From Zat (including a photo of a SocMed post containing the info)...

The 3 suspended (for abusing Ooze and GCS) MCC Members are (I kid you not):

Bartholomew Frinton-Smythe
Humphrey Wigbert-Porter
Quinten Breckenridge

Lardy expressed surprise at the absence of a Nigel.

Thats gotta be a hoax?

Herbert Herbert-Herbet

Sounds about right  - the three Amigos, the three Tenors, the three Stooges, the three right Herberts

horace wrote:Loving the brouhaha from a dead culture still twerking on the semi twitching fat in Jonny's noggin…...

F@ck me if that isn’t the single greatest line I’ve read on the bails, and that’s counting the stuff that Brass Monkey/ Ngam used to produce.

     

On a related note I must bookmark this thread for when I hear the inevitable future whines about “subi sooks” from either side.  Ya farking girly girls do much credit to our own meltdowns.

Rare gold from the SBM sewer

What is it about the Second Test ... 2005, 2023 in particular

skully wrote:So, are we gonna see Mankad attempts, Peter?

Will boiling revenge over being supposedly savagely wronged lead to England themselves allegedly playing against the spirit of the game? Time will tell.

As I said earlier, I don't think there's ever been a Mankad in the history of the Ashes.

Who’d want to miss out on a chance to make history, then?

lardbucket wrote:What is it about the Second Test ... 2005, 2023 in particular

Like the second day often effectively decides a Test, I’d imagine the second Test is often the decisive one in a five-match series.

Fred Nerk wrote:Rare gold from the SBM sewer

love your work Dan Quinn and Rick Newbery.

Love this...

And interesting thoughts from former ICC Umpire of the Year, Simon Taufel here

"Simon Taufel, the former ICC elite umpire who is presently a member of the MCC laws sub-committee, has suggested Australia had not breached the Spirit of Cricket when Alex Carey stumped Jonny Bairstow on the fifth day of the second Ashes Test at Lord's.

"Was Jonny Bairstow's dismissal at Lords a breach of the Spirit of Cricket?" Taufel wrote in a post on LinkedIn. "This is a question I have been inundated with, so I thought it best to share my thoughts publicly by asking everyone a question or eight to consider …

   - Have you seen any umpire tell a fielding side that the keeper standing back is not allowed to attempt a stumping?

   - Was there a complaint from anyone when Bairstow tried to stump Marnus exactly the same way in the first innings?

   - What has Jonny Bairstow said about his dismissal? He has been very quiet. Why?

  - My experience is when people don't like a dismissal under the Laws of Cricket, they cite the Spirit of Cricket to support their view.

  - Which part of the codified Preamble (the Spirit of Cricket) was breached by the fielding side?

  - What did the fielding side do in effecting a legitimate dismissal that unfairly impacted the ability of the batter in their attempt not to be dismissed? (Did they run into him or distract him or prevent him making good his ground?)

  - Should a batter be immune from dismissal as per the Laws by simply being negligent (and leaving his ground too early)?

  - Did England retire Ben Duckett when they disagreed with the Starc catch decision as per the Laws and umpires' decision?

"The hypocrisy and lack of consistency from some people and groups is quite interesting and concerning for the future of our game. Maybe I am the odd one out here? The good news is that we are actively engaged with Test cricket, the best form of the game," he ended."

------------------------------------------------

While ever this is still being talked about, I will post stuff like this. Or England could just get on with the Test series and stop whining.

And this

"Ricky Ponting has lashed England captain Ben Stokes for waiting until post-match to question Australian counterpart Pat Cummins’ decision to appeal for Jonny Bairstow’s controversial Lord’s stumping and feels respect for skippers has “died off”.

As tensions continue to simmer ahead of the third Test at Headingley, with Australian Cricketers Association boss Todd Greenberg confirming extra security measures will be in place, Ponting zoned in on Stokes’ response to the incident.

The English captain was at the nonstriker’s end when Australian keeper Alex Carey threw down the stumps with batting partner Bairstow leaving his crease early and didn’t take the matter up with Cummins.

After the game, won by the Australians, Stokes said he wouldn’t have liked to win a game “like that” and questioned whether it was in the spirit of the game.

But legendary Australian captain Ponting defended Cummins and said Stokes should have handled the incident better.

“The two things that separates both of these two captains is that Ben Stokes had about three hours to think about his answer,” Ponting told The ICC Review.

“Pat Cummins had about 10 seconds to think about what he was going to do and whether he was going to uphold it (the appeal) or not."

“It‘s pretty easy for Ben at the end (of the match) to sit down and give that point of view. But he was actually out there as the batting captain of his team. He could have asked there and then in the heat of the battle if he was thinking clearly like he said he was three hours later in post-game.

“If he was thinking enough, he would have said that to the umpires, ‘You know, was it over? Had you started to move? Is the ball dead?’ They were the questions that had to be answered then and not at the end of the game when he said it.”

Ponting also said a key plank of the spirit of cricket was respecting the umpire’s decision, which in this instance he said the English players, fans, and press had not.

“If we take that Bairstow moment out of this series, you would say that this series has been played with great spirit and everything that has to do with the spirit of cricket and I don‘t think anyone would disagree with that,” he said.

“But one thing like this pops up and then this whole spirit of cricket question is raised again. I’m absolutely a believer in it because there’s more to it than just that one in or out (Bairstow) decision. It’s respecting your opponents, it’s respecting the opposition captain, it’s respecting the umpires and it’s respecting the crowds.”

-----------------------------------------

The article also included a clip of Bairstow stumping Samit Patel in County Cricket where Patel was dismissed after Jonny whipped off the bails as Patel lifted his back foot momentarily.

Personally I think it was great work by Bairstow, but he was questioned by journos at the time about the dismissal's fairness. Jonny's answer - "It's within the rules of the games, and that's how it is."

Nobody’s saying the umpire’s decision was wrong or that what was done wasn’t within the laws of the game. It’s not “cheating” but it’s sneaky and underhand, in the same way as Mankading or appealing when a batsman handles the ball to return it to the bowler. All are technically out, that’s not in doubt, and if Australia have decided to play the game that way we need to give it back, or we’re leaving wickets on the table (just as we did in declaring on a sub-par score on day 1 of the series…)

Bairstow's dismissal was neither sneaky nor underhand.

He was dozing and was caught out in exactly the same way he caught Samit Patel out (you've seen that, no doubt) and that he tried to catch Labuschagne out. It isn't OVER until the umpires have called OVER and both batsmen AND the fielding side clearly believe it's over. Carey threw the ball back at the stumps as soon as he took it. Bairstow walked out of his crease AFTER Carey had taken the ball and thrown it at the stumps, and (unfortunately for him) before it hit the stumps.

Just saying that we should now be looking for opportunities to take similar “unconventional” wickets, given Australia have decided that this is the spirit the series is to be played in.

The laws were written by the MCC. There's no need to invoke the 'spirit' of the game when your side falls foul of the laws, and in particular only when your side falls foul of the laws.

furriner wrote:

horace wrote:Loving the brouhaha from a dead culture still twerking on the semi twitching fat in Jonny's noggin…...

F@ck me if that isn’t the single greatest line I’ve read on the bails, and that’s counting the stuff that Brass Monkey/ Ngam used to produce.

     

On a related note I must bookmark this thread for when I hear the inevitable future whines about “subi sooks” from either side.  Ya farking girly girls do much credit to our own meltdowns.

Excellent to "see" ya, furri.

Could you also bring back that fellow-countryman from t'other end of t'Subcontinent? trike was another of the best people on this place, and I don't just mean on the strength of the comments.

skully wrote:And this

"Ricky Ponting has lashed England captain Ben Stokes for waiting until post-match to question Australian counterpart Pat Cummins’ decision to appeal for Jonny Bairstow’s controversial Lord’s stumping and feels respect for skippers has “died off”.

As tensions continue to simmer ahead of the third Test at Headingley, with Australian Cricketers Association boss Todd Greenberg confirming extra security measures will be in place, Ponting zoned in on Stokes’ response to the incident.

The English captain was at the nonstriker’s end when Australian keeper Alex Carey threw down the stumps with batting partner Bairstow leaving his crease early and didn’t take the matter up with Cummins.

After the game, won by the Australians, Stokes said he wouldn’t have liked to win a game “like that” and questioned whether it was in the spirit of the game.

But legendary Australian captain Ponting defended Cummins and said Stokes should have handled the incident better.

“The two things that separates both of these two captains is that Ben Stokes had about three hours to think about his answer,” Ponting told The ICC Review.

“Pat Cummins had about 10 seconds to think about what he was going to do and whether he was going to uphold it (the appeal) or not."

“It‘s pretty easy for Ben at the end (of the match) to sit down and give that point of view. But he was actually out there as the batting captain of his team. He could have asked there and then in the heat of the battle if he was thinking clearly like he said he was three hours later in post-game.

“If he was thinking enough, he would have said that to the umpires, ‘You know, was it over? Had you started to move? Is the ball dead?’ They were the questions that had to be answered then and not at the end of the game when he said it.”

Ponting also said a key plank of the spirit of cricket was respecting the umpire’s decision, which in this instance he said the English players, fans, and press had not.

“If we take that Bairstow moment out of this series, you would say that this series has been played with great spirit and everything that has to do with the spirit of cricket and I don‘t think anyone would disagree with that,” he said.

“But one thing like this pops up and then this whole spirit of cricket question is raised again. I’m absolutely a believer in it because there’s more to it than just that one in or out (Bairstow) decision. It’s respecting your opponents, it’s respecting the opposition captain, it’s respecting the umpires and it’s respecting the crowds.”

-----------------------------------------

The article also included a clip of Bairstow stumping Samit Patel in County Cricket where Patel was dismissed after Jonny whipped off the bails as Patel lifted his back foot momentarily.

Personally I think it was great work by Bairstow, but he was questioned by journos at the time about the dismissal's fairness. Jonny's answer - "It's within the rules of the games, and that's how it is."

Well, if you stop and think: that's tabloids and other media who should know better (ironically) stoking it - as usual.

Stokes' "only post-match (implication: the hypocrite)" comments were made in an interview, when he was specifically asked about the event.

As far as I know, interviews are not generally conducted in real time, out in the centre.

And check what he said.

He simply said, he personally wouldn't have done it. That's as far as his supposed "bitterness" went. I think it's a fair view. No truculence, no troublemaking. Just calmly, when challenged for a view, he wouldn't have done it.

Broad's view was fierier. And can be picked apart in its own right, where critics choose to.

McCullum's wry response to the same questioning as put to Stokes was he didn't expect the teams would be sharing a beer anytime soon. (Bear in mind the next Test was 3 days off ).

I hardly see that as throwing a molotov cocktail. Would you?

The hacks, grubs and gnomes of the tabloid press on the other hand - and as far as the jingle of cash or the blood of the jigoistic chase on either partisan side is concerned, anyone else in or beyond the media who sinks to that level of wilful conversion of simple comments into declarations of war - they are the inflammatory hatemongers, the incendiaries, or alternatively, the ones who fall for it, and amplify such arson into a righteous cause, us (good) vs them (bad).

"Follow the motive!"

Aus commentators and fans would've been delighted if just one English player (say Joe Root yesterday) when inevitably asked (by the tabloids) for his take on the Bairstow out would've simply said "C'mon' lads, it's all been said, we weren't quite good enough and we need to move on and look forward to trying to get one back at Headingley".

But no, just more stoking. If England were good enough, they wouldn't have let us get to 3-316 after we were inserted at Lords. That's where the match was lost, not when Jonny lazily strolled out of his crease before the ball was dead. There's hardly been a single admission of "not playing as well as we should have". Just more deflections back to Bairstow's dismissal.

All very weak I'm afraid.

Very similar to the acrimonious Sydney 2008 Test where Aus beat India fair and square by some margin of runs but India were filthy that they didn't squeak a Draw after being totally outplayed on Day 5 (they lost in the last over of the match). They then concocted an outrageous "only one side was playing cricket out there" palaver and threatened to fly home if Steve Bucknor stood in any more Tests. Just pathetic.

It actually worked in our favour on the day, we’d never have got within 40-odd if Stokes hadn’t been fired into action by that.

Good call, beams.

skully wrote:Aus commentators and fans would've been delighted if just one English player (say Joe Root yesterday) when inevitably asked (by the tabloids) for his take on the Bairstow out would've simply said "C'mon' lads, it's all been said, we weren't quite good enough and we need to move on and look forward to trying to get one back at Headingley".

But no, just more stoking. If England were good enough, they wouldn't have let us get to 3-316 after we were inserted at Lords. That's where the match was lost, not when Jonny lazily strolled out of his crease before the ball was dead. There's hardly been a single admission of "not playing as well as we should have". Just more deflections back to Bairstow's dismissal.

All very weak I'm afraid.

Very similar to the acrimonious Sydney 2008 Test where Aus beat India fair and square by some margin of runs but India were filthy that they didn't squeak a Draw after being totally outplayed on Day 5 (they lost in the last over of the match). They then concocted an outrageous "only one side was playing cricket out there" palaver and threatened to fly home if Steve Bucknor stood in any more Tests. Just pathetic.

Well I tried, Skully!

I've said my piece ... one of the things that alienated me from this place (alongside poor health and .... other issues) was running "dialogues of the deaf" as the French call them.

Which means I am not saying I am right, just that the entrenched views - often on something like national lines - tend almost inevitably to lead not very far. I don't feel inclined to get into any more running disagreements. Just say my piece, and try to be fair.

Oh for that time back ever engaging with taips. (Though for reasons just stated I eventually resorted to just avoid avoid avoid.)

PeterCS wrote:
(alongside poor health and .... other issues)

Aw Peter, I'm so sorry to hear that.

At least we know why we have missed you for so long.

Good luck with that part of your life, old cock.