Nothing is as funny as listening the Glen McGrath ranting about Starc’s floored catch.
That tells you all you need know about the Aussies and how THEY react to the rules.

He said he had seen everything there was to see in cricket and if that ball wasn’t under control (and ofc body) then every catch ever made needs looking at

WAAC, starc balanced himself by leaning on the just caught ball to steady his movement.

….while being world champions in both T20 and ODI I seem to recall.

It would be total cricket domination for England.

First game England was on top most of the test and fell just short
Second test ended in acrimony and and with a controversial stumping was still only 40 odd runs in it

There’s nowt wrong with bazball, look at the stats, nobody has gained points like England have over the last year

I meant they don't give a **** over the "possibility" of defeat(and the ramifications that come with them) for they carry the confidence their ability will ensure they won't be on the end of those.   

Nobody says there was anything wrong with "Bazball", just that it's far from the "unstoppable" style that much of the media would have you believe. 

Earning plaudits by gaining pts in countless other matches is one thing, LOSING the one that matters most negates plenty of them. Glorious failure is not a luxury a majority will grant you, especially the English media who love to tear shyte down as quickly as they build it.

I say England win at Headingley amid a torrid of abuse and the Aussie’s arse goes.

Hopefully my fellow yorkies will be tanked up early as I expect and just give it em for 5 full days.

"The term “Bazzball” has been coined to refer to an “all-out-attack” style of play. The batters walk out with the intent to score runs on every ball and in white-ball formats, intend to hit every ball out of the park. This always keeps the bowling opposition under the pump and on the back foot. The term has been named after “Brendon McCullum” who is popularly known as “Bazz McCullum”. This is because Bazz was the first one to effectively implement this attacking style of play in the ODI World Cup 2015." 

dusty, I hope you're right(on the result at least) The longer it stays competitive, the longer it remains interesting for everyone.

Exactly, Haydy. Aside from the fact NEITHER side has a leg to stand on when it comes to abiding by the unwritten laws of "gentlemanly" conduct, it's stupid and boring AF in any case. I couldn't stop laughing the other day when I heard a few of the hypocrite clowns suggesting Bairstow should've been "warned" by his opponent that he was going to be stumped if he strayed from the crease. "WARNED!?" what type of ****g "test" match is it when your opponent(your fiercest rival no less) is expected to gift concessions over being adverse??? It's ****g LUDICROUS. Can you imagine in football if a GK kept venturing off his line, and an opposing player spotted this and could take advantage of it at any opportune moment, ran up to him instead and said: "Listen mate, I know the object of the game is to try your damnedest to put the ball in your opponents net, but I feel I must "WARN" you that you're straying off your line far too much. You keep that up and I'm going to have to lob one over you later on"..

The ball WASN'T DEAD. That's why the wicket stood as legit. If the ref blows his whistle BEFORE a GK is lobbed then it'd obviously be scrapped. ALL those screaming blue murder(bar a few deranged denialists) have accepted the ball was in no way dead - BUT that it should've been "considered dead" since Bairstow never attempted run.

As I said it’s for Cummings to have rescinded the plea, but in not doing he’s the one that looks desperate.

The same could be said of collingwood in the day game against NZ when a player ran into the bowler and got run out….I thought at the time that was wrong.
But now let’s have a massive glass fight last man standing gets the urn

"as good as" is not good enough. By leaving the crease early(early enough the keeper doesn't even have time to swing his arm backward&forward FFS) you leave yourself open to be "got" within the rules. Don't like that fact, change the coksucking rules. Bitch to the MCC and have them change them. A simple 2-3second deadball rule(starting from when the keeper has the ball in hands) would put an end to any "hard done by" nonsense. If the batsman don't allow that time to pass before wandering and being stumped, them it's GAME OVER, bitch.

It's more like in football when a team kicks ball out
for injured player.

There's no rule the ball is returned, but it is
as an unwritten rule, if you want to keep it
and score whilst other await it's return then
fair dos.

Cheat like the aussies

Just like Broad felt the need to be opportunistic in KEEPING a wicket he knew should've been toast. If "gentlemanly" behaviour takes a break whenever it feels like it, it's up to the rules to render them the nonsense they are. There's an obvious reason why biased interpretation of the rules are kept in the shade from the actual.

It's a different rule and some walk, some don't.

Teams have reviews so they can check if umpire
misses it.

Stumping somebody simply speeding up game is
simple cheating, and Aussies returning to type.

Will they bring back sledging next, and sandpaper
or are they really trying to play by the spirit
of the game as per their repeated pronouncements
prior to the cheating.

That’s not what I said
I said it’s evident now that relying on the opponent to decide when a ball is dead leads to abuse.

If it's fair to believe that a ball should be alive until AT LEAST the keeper has had time to swing his arm backward&forward..then it's fair to believe the batsman has a responsibility to hold his line until AFTER such time. That must be clear enough to many given the openness to any abuse has always been there, and yet it's a rare issue.

Why would a ball be assumed to still be alive under the circumstances that occurred?

Bairstow wasn’t attempting a run, he played no shot and didn’t even look to see where the ball went.

Ball is dead when deemed dead by umpire.




The ball shall be considered dead when it is clear to the bowler's end umpire that the fielding side and both batters at the wicket have ceased to regard it as in play.”

Clearly the cheating aussie keeper kept it in play
, so it's not dead under the rules.

Like I said, as a batsman, if you can't wait a couple of moments to pass before you're pretty sure ball is dead, getting stumped will forever remain a possible. Just like nicking an obvious edge and never considering walking remains a possible. Batsman is in complete control of the former(simply by being careful) while he benefits from the latter being poorly judged.

We have established that
But it’s also why if no objective benefit from the act of assuming it was dead should have been simple for Cummings to rescind.
Not doing is desperate.

Except the ball never even settled in the keeper's gloves. He caught the ball and threw at the stumps in one motion (at which point, incidentally, Bairstow was in his ground).

A couple of years ago, Ben Foakes (England keeper) caught the ball, held it for several moments, waited for the (Ireland) batsman to lift his foot and stumped him. That's far worse if timewasting is the issue. It also rather takes the sheen off the England team's air of moral superiority now.

But I do agree with you that such behaviour will slow down the game even more, which is a problem, so perhaps the law might need to be changed going forward.

On a related point, Bazball England are always banging on about how they want to "entertain" and "save Test cricket", yet they are perfectly happy to bowl at an overrate of 12 per hour.