Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
"English cricket fans were left fuming after Alex Carey controversially stumped Jonny Bairstow(what's "contoroversial" about playing to the rules???) on Day Five of the second Ashes Test at Lord's.
Beginning the day on 114-4 and requiring 371 to win, Ben Duckett and Ben Stokes started well as England's captain passed 50.
Duckett was eventually dismissed for a well-made 83 as Carey took a sensational one-handed catch down the legside.
However, just as Bairstow and Stokes were developing a promising partnership, England's keeper was dismissed in bizarre fashion.
After ducking a bouncer from Cameron Green, he wandered out of his crease, believing the ball was dead.
However, Carey threw the ball back at the stumps and hit them, with Bairstow out of his ground, meaning the Aussies picked up an extremely cheap wicket as tempers flared.
The Lord's crowd was infuriated by the unsporting actions of the visitors as they vociferously booed them and in particular Carey and skipper Pat Cummins.
Stuart Broad was the next man in and he was also fuming, exchanging intense words with Marnus Labuschagne and Cummins.
England supporters on social media were also angry and shared their thoughts on the incident.
England fast bowler Jofra Archer led the reaction as he simply said: 'Wow.'
Meanwhile, Piers Morgan added: 'You cannot be serious??!! Australia, that is pathetic. How can you possibly want to win an Ashes Test match like that?'
Mail Sport's Paul Newman also said: 'That’s very very poor from Australia.'
It began a bizarre passage of play ahead of lunch as a riled up Stokes took the attack to Australia, scoring 50 runs in the next five overs as he raced to a superb hundred.
As the players headed off for lunch, the Aussies were on the receiving end of more vociferous criticism, including from MCC members as the players walked through the long room."
Beginning the day on 114-4 and requiring 371 to win, Ben Duckett and Ben Stokes started well as England's captain passed 50.
Duckett was eventually dismissed for a well-made 83 as Carey took a sensational one-handed catch down the legside.
However, just as Bairstow and Stokes were developing a promising partnership, England's keeper was dismissed in bizarre fashion.
After ducking a bouncer from Cameron Green, he wandered out of his crease, believing the ball was dead.
However, Carey threw the ball back at the stumps and hit them, with Bairstow out of his ground, meaning the Aussies picked up an extremely cheap wicket as tempers flared.
The Lord's crowd was infuriated by the unsporting actions of the visitors as they vociferously booed them and in particular Carey and skipper Pat Cummins.
Stuart Broad was the next man in and he was also fuming, exchanging intense words with Marnus Labuschagne and Cummins.
England supporters on social media were also angry and shared their thoughts on the incident.
England fast bowler Jofra Archer led the reaction as he simply said: 'Wow.'
Meanwhile, Piers Morgan added: 'You cannot be serious??!! Australia, that is pathetic. How can you possibly want to win an Ashes Test match like that?'
Mail Sport's Paul Newman also said: 'That’s very very poor from Australia.'
It began a bizarre passage of play ahead of lunch as a riled up Stokes took the attack to Australia, scoring 50 runs in the next five overs as he raced to a superb hundred.
As the players headed off for lunch, the Aussies were on the receiving end of more vociferous criticism, including from MCC members as the players walked through the long room."
Show More
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
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
If you want the players to wait 10 seconds
until umpire signals dead ball after each delivery
Then at 90overs x6 balls x 10 seconds it's an
hour and a half wasted rather than doing it on
the nod.
If he's trying to pinch a single, stump him
If he's batting out of his ground, stump him
If he's speeding up play then don't be a cheating aussie
until umpire signals dead ball after each delivery
Then at 90overs x6 balls x 10 seconds it's an
hour and a half wasted rather than doing it on
the nod.
If he's trying to pinch a single, stump him
If he's batting out of his ground, stump him
If he's speeding up play then don't be a cheating aussie
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 isn’t for a batsman to give themselves out
Just as it’s now evident it’s not for the opponent to decide when the ball is or isn’t dead
Just as it’s now evident it’s not for the opponent to decide when the ball is or isn’t dead
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.
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.
So it's not for a batsman to give themselves out, and it's also not for his opponent to stump him when he's a sloppy clown. That seems like a charmed life..
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.
I said it’s evident now that relying on the opponent to decide when a ball is dead leads to abuse.
You seem to been confusing yourself by
false equivalence
false equivalence
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.
Well, doubtless he will in future against cheating Aussies.
The game will progress more quickly against other teams
The game will progress more quickly against other teams
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.
Bairstow wasn’t attempting a run, he played no shot and didn’t even look to see where the ball went.
Because the law says that the ball is dead when it is clear to the standing umpire that both the batsman and the fielders consider it to be dead.
This event may show that the law needs to be changed, but it was clearly OK on Sunday.
This event may show that the law needs to be changed, but it was clearly OK on Sunday.
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.
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.
Bazball is a good way of beating up on poor teams. I'm looking forward to seeing how it goes this winter, in 5 tests against India, on huge grounds, against seasoned IPL bowlers.
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.
Notably, South Asian batsmen habitually look at the square leg umpire to check if it's OK to leave their ground.
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.
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.
Yeah if you want to delay a days cricket by another 90 mins
let's wait for cheating Aussies to say ball is dead
before doing the gardening.
Rather than touching bat or foot inside crease
and toddling off when ball is in effect clearly
dead, unless cheating Aussies decide otherwise.
let's wait for cheating Aussies to say ball is dead
before doing the gardening.
Rather than touching bat or foot inside crease
and toddling off when ball is in effect clearly
dead, unless cheating Aussies decide otherwise.
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.
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.
But, AGAIN, laughy, you're demanding that the ball being dead is down to the batsman's mannerisms - all of which are BEFORE the keeper has had a chance to wind his arm back&forth after gaining ball possession! 
I've no doubt Cummings is desperate to win. The exact same way Broad was. Being desperate to win is a far better quality to have than abiding by "gentlemanly" laws that simply don't exist(nor should they)
I've no doubt Cummings is desperate to win. The exact same way Broad was. Being desperate to win is a far better quality to have than abiding by "gentlemanly" laws that simply don't exist(nor should they)
What the batsman does totally dictates whether the ball is dead or not, not what the keeper does
The batsman could stay in his crease all night, and based on him not moving an argument could be made that he might be about to.
Bairstow ducked yet another bouncer, the ball went nowhere near any part of him that would have resulted in a catch, he implied by his motion he was declaring he was in his crease and assumed everyone else agreed.
It’s only the assumption that was wrong, no other gain was made nor attempted, it’s pure tedious to argue because the keeper might want to wait to see if he will try a run when clearly he showed his intention was not to.
The batsman could stay in his crease all night, and based on him not moving an argument could be made that he might be about to.
Bairstow ducked yet another bouncer, the ball went nowhere near any part of him that would have resulted in a catch, he implied by his motion he was declaring he was in his crease and assumed everyone else agreed.
It’s only the assumption that was wrong, no other gain was made nor attempted, it’s pure tedious to argue because the keeper might want to wait to see if he will try a run when clearly he showed his intention was not to.
Dusty, there's an interesting piece by Glen McGrath on the BBC Sport website which addresses your exact point - he argues that Bairstow acted like he owned the game and, essentially, got what he deserved. Basically, he says England having been playing with a much too casual attitude, and not respecting the game.
Also interesting comments from Simon Taufel reported on Cricinfo.
Also interesting comments from Simon Taufel reported on Cricinfo.
I don’t disagree, Bairstow was sloppy based on the continued weight of proceedings for what people assume will happen.
But McGrath didn’t paint himself in glory when he contested ‘every catch ever made needs looking at’ as a result of Starc grounding that catch.
Does he want ex players to come out of retirement and replay every game ever played?
But McGrath didn’t paint himself in glory when he contested ‘every catch ever made needs looking at’ as a result of Starc grounding that catch.
Does he want ex players to come out of retirement and replay every game ever played?
Think that would have been said tongue-in-cheek tbf dusty , not to be taken literally by any means.
It dictates it only from a biased POV. If there's a touch of ambiguity about when a ball is dead, then BOTH sides should be respecting a reasonable lapse.
As strontium said, the keeper didn’t throw the ball back because he thought he might run or had left the crease, Bairstow was in the crease when he threw it back
He threw it because he saw Bairstow previously walk out the crease while not running
Therefore it was pure opportunism, and the chance was available for Cummings to disparate the way the game now looks stupid, but he didn’t because he was desperate.
He threw it because he saw Bairstow previously walk out the crease while not running
Therefore it was pure opportunism, and the chance was available for Cummings to disparate the way the game now looks stupid, but he didn’t because he was desperate.
Rather than analysing this incident, watch back a whole days test match play and count up how many incidents occur where the keeper "could" do the exact same thing, I don't know obviously but I'd guess there would be several times where it could happen.
Then ask yourself why it doesn't.
Then ask yourself why it doesn't.
This assumes that the opponent wants to play by pu$$y rules. e.g. when I make an ERROR grave enough for you to punish me, don't capitalise on it due to non-existent "gentlemanly" laws.
As i said, there was no reason to assume the ball was still in play, there was no opportunity to score, only one for the keeper to chance his arm and make subjective questions of what is live or dead make the whole game look daft.
But let’s not forget what this ‘desperation to win’ actually looks like
It’s been said about the sandpaper and Steve smith, also a desperate act to win….but what isn’t often remembered is the fact he lied about it about 4 times.
On one occasion saying it was sand or something in his picket and a bit of tape
It wasn’t, it was sandpaper, a contrived act.
But let’s not forget what this ‘desperation to win’ actually looks like
It’s been said about the sandpaper and Steve smith, also a desperate act to win….but what isn’t often remembered is the fact he lied about it about 4 times.
On one occasion saying it was sand or something in his picket and a bit of tape
It wasn’t, it was sandpaper, a contrived act.
Aussies calling stokes a crybaby is a bit rich after Smith's snivelling pathetic attempt to gain a bit of sympathy.
Baz ball has improved England massively.
It still needs to be refined, but overall
I'd argue it has to stay.
India might be one major refinement, but hey.
It still needs to be refined, but overall
I'd argue it has to stay.
India might be one major refinement, but hey.
Aussies calling stokes a crybaby is a bit rich after the grounded catch
the night before, that surely was the trigger
for the cheating aussie stumping.
the night before, that surely was the trigger
for the cheating aussie stumping.
Harking back to the past about a clear breach of the rules doesn't make this incident any more "damning". Everyone hopefully knows where the lines are now. If you move from your crease quicker than Usain Bolt(either through ERROR, arrogance, or the comfort of BS "gentlemanly" law) you leave your wicket exposed for any side willing to punish you for it.
BAMOS!
BAMOS!
Glenn mcgrath thinks warner should be allowed to
captain teams, so might not have the strongest of
moral compasses.
He is, of course, entitled to his opinion.
captain teams, so might not have the strongest of
moral compasses.
He is, of course, entitled to his opinion.
Yep sniper all Australian games will
feature the chance of a stumping after
every ball.
Elsewhere hopefully the game moves on more quickly.
feature the chance of a stumping after
every ball.
Elsewhere hopefully the game moves on more quickly.
Harking back?
You been referring to Broady not walking, that was from a comment years ago.
Not even comparable to putting sandpaper in your pocket with intent
Then when asked by the umpire if he just put something down his pants says no
Then yes but it was just tape
Then it wasn’t tape it was just sand in his pocket
Then it wasn’t it was sandpaper
That is about a character reference to determine exactly what is in the minds of those wanting to win at all cost
You been referring to Broady not walking, that was from a comment years ago.
Not even comparable to putting sandpaper in your pocket with intent
Then when asked by the umpire if he just put something down his pants says no
Then yes but it was just tape
Then it wasn’t tape it was just sand in his pocket
Then it wasn’t it was sandpaper
That is about a character reference to determine exactly what is in the minds of those wanting to win at all cost
Harking back to the incident of sand paper
that was supposed to wipe out sledging and treat
game with due respect moving forward.
Now we see intent of aussie cheating at all costs.
And mcgrath wheeled out when he wants the cheats pardoned
that was supposed to wipe out sledging and treat
game with due respect moving forward.
Now we see intent of aussie cheating at all costs.
And mcgrath wheeled out when he wants the cheats pardoned
McGrath was one of the greatest players of all time, and played in arguably the greatest team. Even if you don't agree with him his insights are interesting, especially when it comes to things like players' attitudes.
He's a great commentator.
I've said that many times, he's one of
the best around in any sport.
I think he lacks a moral compass on aussie cheating
wanting warner ban lifted. So maybe not the guy
to follow on this occasion
I've said that many times, he's one of
the best around in any sport.
I think he lacks a moral compass on aussie cheating
wanting warner ban lifted. So maybe not the guy
to follow on this occasion
Broad/Foakes(also years ago) is relevant to this incident given the hypocrisy in question over "gentlemanly" hogwash. When absolution is obviously unattainable, why bother worrying about anything other than playing by the rules. That's all the Aussies did here. That's why they were seen mocking those stuffed shirts during their stroll through the long room as they were coming under attack with all sorts of "cheat" accusations. Instead of "regretting" their decision to out Bairstow's ERROR, this was confirmation they nailed it.
Yeah, the sandpaper redemption is stumped.
Delicious irony.
Same old aussies
Delicious irony.
Same old aussies
You don’t want to go down that route regarding whether the batter thinks he hit it or not
Otherwise you’d have to call every referral that a batsman makes and gets wrong.
Broady might have thought he hit it, but until he is definitively shown to have the best option is to wait.
Otherwise you’d have to call every referral that a batsman makes and gets wrong.
Broady might have thought he hit it, but until he is definitively shown to have the best option is to wait.
Come on dusty, he already says he "knew" he'd hit it. And why wouldn't he? aliens from OS could see+HEAR he hit the bitch. Listen to bumble..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHhZb-cBKwc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHhZb-cBKwc
It doesn’t detract from the fact you are arguing about the importance of whether he did know or not, when countless batters want clarification of if they did hit a catch, or didn’t hit an LBW and get it wrong
Not many put sandpaper in their pocket for the single act of cheating then lie repeatedly about it after each question after getting caught
Not many put sandpaper in their pocket for the single act of cheating then lie repeatedly about it after each question after getting caught
How many Aussies have been given out on DRS
caught behind having not walked?
Must be loads, but it's not even the same thing.
Almost impossible to nick ball and not know it.
caught behind having not walked?
Must be loads, but it's not even the same thing.
Almost impossible to nick ball and not know it.
Bit rich singling out a bowler for not walking, when ponting regularly declared he wouldn’t walk and he was a designated batter.
Not many are as desperate to win. Either way, nobody is giving a pass to cheating. Any person/side caught doing something illegal in any sport must rightfully suffer the consequences of that. The aussies were punished for those sins. Many actually believe too severely(Including many English)
Do they not deserve to move on? It's like someone committing a non deadly crime and after serving jail time they are always reminded of the bad they did in the past, with their present&future being condemned because of it. It just doesn't make sense.
Do they not deserve to move on? It's like someone committing a non deadly crime and after serving jail time they are always reminded of the bad they did in the past, with their present&future being condemned because of it. It just doesn't make sense.
It’s you who attempts to bring Broady into it as an example of non sportsmanship….when the Aussies did that too, but with greater impact
They will face the p1shed up yorkie in the morning
They will face the p1shed up yorkie in the morning
Yes plenty of current team around sand paper.
Shane Warne, banned himself for cheating, thought
the sandpaper was covered up to save some of the others
involved.
Move on, yep, but not by cheating.
Shane Warne, banned himself for cheating, thought
the sandpaper was covered up to save some of the others
involved.
Move on, yep, but not by cheating.
The issue with Broad, for me, is that on Tuesday he was gloating on the BBC about not having walked/got away with hitting it to slip off the face of the bat, then on Sunday he is condemning the Aussies for being unsporting. The players did not act outside the laws in either case, but Broad's reaction on Sunday was gross hypocrisy.
every single member of that team and the management knew about the sandpaper.however,cowardice prevented them from admitting and owning up.
I'm sure the Yorkshire crowd will take
cheating into account when formulating chants.
All good light hearted fun.
cheating into account when formulating chants.
All good light hearted fun.
dusty, the point is I'M not calling for standards to be kept outwith playing by the rules. Play hard and play by the rules. That's all that's needed for any sport. Introducing certain "etiquette" and unwritten poppycock laws only leads to an almost certain level of hypocrisy once BOTH sides fail to adhere to these "moral" standards.
Yes, except as shown all the defensive arguments made against England were also committed by the Aussies but they went well beyond even those, which suggests a mentality of cheating.
Referring to one of your earlier questions about forgiveness; no, while a player still plays it never gets truly forgiven because never can you believe the intent to cheat has diminished just because they got caught.
Atherton had a cloud over him for the rest of his career. Ok, now he commentates it’s largely forgotten what he did with the sweet in his pocket rubbing it’s residue onto the ball through his spit, but the opposition never forgot it I’ll bet you that.
Referring to one of your earlier questions about forgiveness; no, while a player still plays it never gets truly forgiven because never can you believe the intent to cheat has diminished just because they got caught.
Atherton had a cloud over him for the rest of his career. Ok, now he commentates it’s largely forgotten what he did with the sweet in his pocket rubbing it’s residue onto the ball through his spit, but the opposition never forgot it I’ll bet you that.
Just as when opponents who played SA after cronje, or who played Pakistan after spot fixes. It’s always there it stands out.
Btw
Having just seen it again (the Bairstow stumping) it is utter bs to say that both umpires didn’t consider that ball dead.
If they didn’t, then why did both take their eyes off the ball and start the procedure of closing the over?
Square leg looked away and reached for his (light meter?)-whatever he was fiddling with.
Bowling umpire looked away and started to take stuff out his pocket.
If the ball was still live then why arn’t they watching the game?
Having just seen it again (the Bairstow stumping) it is utter bs to say that both umpires didn’t consider that ball dead.
If they didn’t, then why did both take their eyes off the ball and start the procedure of closing the over?
Square leg looked away and reached for his (light meter?)-whatever he was fiddling with.
Bowling umpire looked away and started to take stuff out his pocket.
If the ball was still live then why arn’t they watching the game?
Blimey
Brad Hogg just said my very point….take a bow Brad Hogg
Brad Hogg just said my very point….take a bow Brad Hogg
The fact that the umpires weren't paying attention doesn't change the laws of the game (though it's an argument for a change of umpires).
Shows they were cowards for not emphasising the truth; that the ball was considered dead.
Great coverage of the supposed controversy from Sky this morning , no breach of that ridiculous spirit of the game was pretty unanimous from all the people that matter , time for the whingeing to stop and move on.
Won the toss yet again , no excuses.
Won the toss yet again , no excuses.
If the on-field umpires considered the ball dead, they wouldn't have referred the decision to the third umpire. The ball wasn't dead, so the batsman was out.
Essentially, nobody seriously argues Bairstow wasn't out because clearly, within the laws of the game, he was. The argument (now done to death) is simply about whether the outcome was morally correct/within the spirit of cricket.
Essentially, nobody seriously argues Bairstow wasn't out because clearly, within the laws of the game, he was. The argument (now done to death) is simply about whether the outcome was morally correct/within the spirit of cricket.
Indeed Hayden - perfectly set up for a Bazball style 4th innings chase.
Yes, and given the fact both umpires officiating independently considered it dead then they should have emphasised that fact, as has happened in the past where umpires have stated the case and made the point that the choice is made by the captain, which is what everyone has agreed.
Those who defend his choice and those who say he was wrong.
Those who defend his choice and those who say he was wrong.
interesting seeing folk trying to justify the cheating and ease their conscience.dont worry man,you are proven cheats and will continue to be. most cowards are cheats.
That's a bit harsh on Broad mate , i wouldn't have walked either.
Sandpaper Smith didn't walk, given out
burns a review on top of that, lol.
burns a review on top of that, lol.
dusty, you're splitting hairs all the time. Like I said, BOTH sides have shown they're willing to bend/"cheat" for the desperation of winning. The only diff seems to be one side appears determined to sweep all their dodgy **** under the rug while lambasting the other for being the worst of the worst. It's like 2 convicted murderers fighting over which one is purer. Even if one has a slightly higher body count, BOTH are proven murderers who have lost the right to remain high&mighty.
For today's match, I woke up to hear it was "a great batting pitch" and yet Aus are 4 wickets down without hitting a ton
What's the story?
For today's match, I woke up to hear it was "a great batting pitch" and yet Aus are 4 wickets down without hitting a ton
What's the story?
Should be ‘for 5’
Nobody worse than the Aussies for cheating snipey, sorry.
You can’t compare anything with sandpaper, it’s as they say, in the grain.
Nobody worse than the Aussies for cheating snipey, sorry.
You can’t compare anything with sandpaper, it’s as they say, in the grain.
But is that any surprise? A reflection of their ancestry..
The umpires and officials make a decision and it's the Aussie's fault that they get it wrong!
I was going to add that you couldn't make it up but that would be erroneous - England fans keep making it up. It;s in their genes.
And it is so self-defeating because all this furore does is disguise the facts - England are undisciplined and lose runs left right and centre that the Aussies don't, and, Stoles is a great player but a "Bothamesque" captain, and that is not to sledge two of England;s greatest ever players but simply a bare telling of the facts.
Here's to 0-3 by next Monday night.
I was going to add that you couldn't make it up but that would be erroneous - England fans keep making it up. It;s in their genes.
And it is so self-defeating because all this furore does is disguise the facts - England are undisciplined and lose runs left right and centre that the Aussies don't, and, Stoles is a great player but a "Bothamesque" captain, and that is not to sledge two of England;s greatest ever players but simply a bare telling of the facts.
Here's to 0-3 by next Monday night.
I did notice that Erasmus was applauded for facing cameras to explain why the starc catch was grounded, in contrast to football refs that don’t.
Well on the evidence on tape of both field umpires they should have been made to admit that they indeed thought the over, to be over too.
Well on the evidence on tape of both field umpires they should have been made to admit that they indeed thought the over, to be over too.
About time these so called professionals stopped talking to each other like girls , not even seen a shove yet never mind a punch and that's something you rarely don't see in modern day sport when two teams supposedly hate each other.
Don't care who wins series in all honesty but like to see both sides become men rather than girly gentlemen and start getting stuck into each other.
Sledging is just sticks and stones ......and something girls do in the school playground.
The day they burnt those stumps they should have set the spirit of the game sheet on fire with it.
However exciting this series may end up it wont resurrect a dying format of the game for long by itself , only bad feeling and controversy will keep that pot boiling.
Don't care who wins series in all honesty but like to see both sides become men rather than girly gentlemen and start getting stuck into each other.
Sledging is just sticks and stones ......and something girls do in the school playground.
The day they burnt those stumps they should have set the spirit of the game sheet on fire with it.
However exciting this series may end up it wont resurrect a dying format of the game for long by itself , only bad feeling and controversy will keep that pot boiling.
Must be 10 years since wannabe captain and sandpaper
enthusiast Warner got a ban for assaulting joe root.
enthusiast Warner got a ban for assaulting joe root.
Scotland knocked out of world cup by holland
on run rate, having overhauled Scotland's 50
over total in 42 overs.
Unlucky.
on run rate, having overhauled Scotland's 50
over total in 42 overs.
Unlucky.
We've got bas de leede at Durham and he's never really
looked like doing that
123 and 5/52.
looked like doing that
123 and 5/52.
Great session for marsh.
100 in a session in a test match is a rare feat.
Finally gone, because they rushed to get extra over in.
Great innings.
100 in a session in a test match is a rare feat.
Finally gone, because they rushed to get extra over in.
Great innings.
The MCC will limit members' access to players after the ugly scenes following Jonny Bairstow's dismissal
The cordon will be expanded and members will be kept away from the staircases
"The members shown on camera have brought shame on the MCC"
Lol terrible toffs
The cordon will be expanded and members will be kept away from the staircases
"The members shown on camera have brought shame on the MCC"
Lol terrible toffs
They have though. Symbolic of the dumbing down of conduct, courtesy and behaviour throughout the culture. Our culture.
Cheer up
You been shown your god to worship in the rainbow pattern on the stumps
Now kneel.
You been shown your god to worship in the rainbow pattern on the stumps
Now kneel.
What do our resident Spirit of Cricket warriors think of the run out at Edgbaston last night in the Blast quarter-final?
Only watch international cricket
Is that the one where the dj blasts out music and fireworks go off each time the ball goes over the rope?
Is that the one where the dj blasts out music and fireworks go off each time the ball goes over the rope?
One of the ones, yes. There are plenty of them nowadays.
Cricket is all about the betting for me and that makes T20 the top dog by a country mile laying low odds , can't be beaten although American Sports run it close , biggest liquidity in all of sport for T20 as well so never any fear on that score.
T20 is great punting as long as you don't forget the tie.
Never forget the tie yhtl , worked it out to have saved me around £4k this season as i play all T20 & ODI games when the low lays appear , actually had a 370 winner this season as well in the IPL , never lay above 1.25 though so if that or below doesn't appear then no bet , normally play 80/20 risk as well so keep 20% risk if/when the price drops sub 1.1 then take the green when they flip flop or nearly so.
Best of luck
Best of luck
Rain ffs
I have to turn the sound down, all this analysis to fill the time.
I heard a reference to Ian Ward’s test career…..I couldn’t remember him having a test career, had to look it up, wasn’t much of one.
But I did chuckle at his nickname- The Chimp
Think that’s pretty accurate, a very small man.
I have to turn the sound down, all this analysis to fill the time.
I heard a reference to Ian Ward’s test career…..I couldn’t remember him having a test career, had to look it up, wasn’t much of one.
But I did chuckle at his nickname- The Chimp
Think that’s pretty accurate, a very small man.
The Chimp? wow,i hope he wasnt offended.i feel others may not have taken it as mr ward.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539