Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Cricket] The Ashes- England v Australia- 2nd Test, Lords, June 28 - July 02, 2023

Ashes- 2nd Test- The result ?


  • Total voters
    74
  • Poll closed .


dazzer6666

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Mar 27, 2013
53,049
Burgess Hill
That’s my precise point. Exactly what we always did in village and league. But if they then appeal then, in the laws of the game, it’s out. Fail to withdraw that appeal and you’re not exactly having a beer with the oppo after.

Standard practice not to run someone out going for an end of over chat, no?
Not really, if you check first they can’t appeal. YJB didn’t check anything, he just went for a wander a bit too early - different to dead-batting a ball at your feet and picking it up (he wouldn’t have done that without checking).

Cvntish from the convicts but ‘they are what they are’.
 






dazzer6666

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Mar 27, 2013
53,049
Burgess Hill
I didn’t realise a check is in the laws of the game. I always thought of it as a gentleman’s agreement. I umpired too 😂
37.4

37.4 Returning the ball to a fielder

Either batter is out Obstructing the field if, at any time while the ball is in play and, without the consent of a fielder, he/she uses the bat or any part of his/her person to return the ball to any fielder.
 


Eeyore

Colonel Hee-Haw of Queen's Park
NSC Patron
Apr 5, 2014
24,080
I tried to find a description of Srikkanth's dismissal, the best I can find is this article in hindi:


"Accident during test debut Chris Srikkanth's Test debut remains in controversy. In the first Test match of his career, this opening batsman of India made such a mistake that for a long time he remained a laughing stock in the team. Srikkanth made his Test debut during the match against England at Mumbai's Wankhede Stadium. He could not even open the account during the first innings. It was expected that runs would come from Srikanth's bat in the second innings, but due to his own mistake, he was out in this innings on a personal score of just 13 runs.

Actually, Srikanth is known as explosive batter but he was playing tuktuk in this match. They don't like doing that much. During batting, he was explaining to himself that he has to play slowly. At the score of 13 runs, he hit the ball in the direction of slip near John Embury. There was no run on this ball. Srikanth thought that he would throw the bad ball at the bowling end so that the next ball could be thrown. He himself was out of the crease. Meanwhile, the English player hit the ball directly on the wicket at the striker's end. In this way, Srikanth lost the wicket due to his own mistake.

After getting out, Srikanth sat on the pitch holding his head. At that time Nawab Pataudi was doing commentary. He said on Srikanth's move that it seemed that Srikanth had gone out for a walk on Juhu Beach. After returning to the pavilion, Srikkanth was also made fun of by Kapil Dev and Sunil Gavaskar."

That's been put through Google translate, obviously. I can't read hindi.

I'd suggest there's a difference between walking out of your crease after letting the ball go through to the keeper, and hitting the ball to slip before going for a wander.

To be honest though, I'm not going to worry about seeming hypocritical based on incidents from more than 10 years before I was born.

Interestingly the Wisden report suggests Gower was previously run out by Srikkanth from short leg in perculiar circumstances, while making no reference at all to the Srikkanth's later dismissal. Which may suggest a degree of one-eyedness on the part of the report writer


I don't think it's cheating, and I think it's daft from Bairstow. But that doesn't stop it being a snide way to get somebody out.
Apart from anything else, I paid good money for my NowTV subscription, and I didn't pay it to watch anybody get dismissed by a gentle underarm from 15yds away while they weren't looking.
Your Wisden check is a good spot. Gavaskar has made reference to it himself.

I do agree it is very snide. My main objection is on the basis of English folk and moral proprietary on sporting issues.

I used to read The Cricketer when I was young. I did do a trial recently, but it's not what it was.

Then again, neither is cricket sadly.
 


A1X

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Sep 1, 2017
18,478
Deepest, darkest Sussex
 




Sid and the Sharknados

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Sep 4, 2022
4,492
Darlington
Your Wisden check is a good spot. Gavaskar has made reference to it himself.

I do agree it is very snide. My main objection is on the basis of English folk and moral proprietary on sporting issues.

I used to read The Cricketer when I was young. I did do a trial recently, but it's not what it was.

Then again, neither is cricket sadly.
Nostalgia's not what it was either.

I did a year's subscription with the cricketer a while ago, but decided it wasn't worth however much I was paying.

If you look up the scorecard of a test match, the Wisden report is normally listed under the "News" tab.

Regardless of what I think of some people's knee jerk response to anything that goes against England compared to when we benefit from it, the constant Australian moaning and hypocrisy over the "right way" to play test cricket rather removes any sympathy I might feel. In any case I think it's always best to just take any incident on its own merit.
 


Eeyore

Colonel Hee-Haw of Queen's Park
NSC Patron
Apr 5, 2014
24,080
Actually, it just occurred to me that the best measure of how long ago that Bombay test took place is that not only was it before I was born, it was before James Anderson was born. :lolol:
You really, really, didn't miss anything. That Test produced a positive result on a green top. The rest of the series was as dull as dishwater. I loved it, because it was cricket. But few others held the same enthusiasm.

I think it was that series that then led to the 90 overs a day rule being implemented.

I have the original report:

'95-1 became 157-7, two to the players, four to the umpires' Indian umpires were legendary.

354139190_1363310254584175_4200048607685844366_n.jpg
 


Jim in the West

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Sep 13, 2003
4,658
Way out West
I was just having a look at the report the Aussies commissioned, post "Sandpapergate". In setting out the way they would play cricket in future, they said this:

"Cricket is a game that owes much of its unique appeal to the fact that it should be played not only within its Laws but also within the Spirit of the Game. Any action which is seen to abuse this spirit causes injury to the game itself. The major responsibility for ensuring the spirit of fair play rests with the captains."

I guess the Aussies will say that they did nothing wrong - but the point is that they have clearly (ihmo) NOT observed the spirit of the game.

Hopefully the whole incident will reduce their enjoyment of going 2-0 up. The crazy thing is, they were massive favourites to win anyway. And if Cummins had withdrawn the appeal they would have got a huge amount of respect and almost certainly won anyway.
 




Iggle Piggle

Well-known member
Sep 3, 2010
5,457
Like virtually everyone else, i'm not arguing it's anything but out or that Bairstow should know better (as well as a separate argument that he is England's most unlikeable player by a margin). My issue is

1. There was a wailing and nashing of teeth around sand paper gate.The guy who played Joe Mangel was on TMS and he stopped watching for a year due to his disgust. Aussies were up in arms, players were banned and crying on the telly sobbing how sorry they were. Today just showed leopards don't change their spots or that they even seem remotely bothered by it. Today was a great opportunity for them to show the world things had changed. Instead they did what comes naturally to them. A perfect illustration of how Fosters comes from there.

2. It's a further erosion of the spirit of the game along with Mankads and everything else. Someone, somewhere will be out next weekend as some talentless, bell cheese 5th team keeper does what he's seem Carey doing

Lastly, we lost this test because we batted like village cricketers on Day 2 and I've more of a issue with Bairstow keeping like one. If he'd have tried the same thing I'd wager he'd have missed the stumps.
 


Sid and the Sharknados

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Sep 4, 2022
4,492
Darlington
I was just having a look at the report the Aussies commissioned, post "Sandpapergate". In setting out the way they would play cricket in future, they said this:

"Cricket is a game that owes much of its unique appeal to the fact that it should be played not only within its Laws but also within the Spirit of the Game. Any action which is seen to abuse this spirit causes injury to the game itself. The major responsibility for ensuring the spirit of fair play rests with the captains."

I guess the Aussies will say that they did nothing wrong - but the point is that they have clearly (ihmo) NOT observed the spirit of the game.

Hopefully the whole incident will reduce their enjoyment of going 2-0 up. The crazy thing is, they were massive favourites to win anyway. And if Cummins had withdrawn the appeal they would have got a huge amount of respect and almost certainly won anyway.
It's worth remembering that Cummins and the other Australian bowlers denied all knowledge of the sandpaper.
Suggesting they're either a) oblivious/stupid, or b) all liars who were happy to let 3 people, including Bancroft in his first year in the team, carry the can rather than sharing responsibility.
 


A1X

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Sep 1, 2017
18,478
Deepest, darkest Sussex
It's worth remembering that Cummins and the other Australian bowlers denied all knowledge of the sandpaper.
Suggesting they're either a) oblivious/stupid, or b) all liars who were happy to let 3 people, including Bancroft in his first year in the team, carry the can rather than sharing responsibility.
I would put money on David Warner (who has no love for Cricket Australia and still feels he was thrown under the bus for it more than even Smith was) at some point writing a book along the lines of “What the bowlers knew”. Remember these guys are so focused on the ball during a game they complain to the umpires if it hits an advertising board a bit hard, there is no way they didn’t notice what was happening.
 




Sid and the Sharknados

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Sep 4, 2022
4,492
Darlington
You really, really, didn't miss anything. That Test produced a positive result on a green top. The rest of the series was as dull as dishwater. I loved it, because it was cricket. But few others held the same enthusiasm.

I think it was that series that then led to the 90 overs a day rule being implemented.

I have the original report:

'95-1 became 157-7, two to the players, four to the umpires' Indian umpires were legendary.

View attachment 163007
My first series was the Ashes in 2001.
I distinctly remember my elder brother insisting that "you can't tell who's winning in cricket".
Having looked back at the scorecards from that series, I think it was pretty clear who was winning most of the time.
 


Eeyore

Colonel Hee-Haw of Queen's Park
NSC Patron
Apr 5, 2014
24,080
It's worth remembering that Cummins and the other Australian bowlers denied all knowledge of the sandpaper.
Suggesting they're either a) oblivious/stupid, or b) all liars who were happy to let 3 people, including Bancroft in his first year in the team, carry the can rather than sharing responsibility.
I felt really sorry for Bancroft in that one. He was just a youngster who would have been easily manipulated. I'd have handed most of his ban to Warner.
 


Eeyore

Colonel Hee-Haw of Queen's Park
NSC Patron
Apr 5, 2014
24,080
My first series was the Ashes in 2001.
I distinctly remember my elder brother insisting that "you can't tell who's winning in cricket".
Having looked back at the scorecards from that series, I think it was pretty clear who was winning most of the time.
Oh blimey, you did well to survive without trauma, Headingley excepted.

My first series was The Ashes in 1981, so there was credit in the cricket bank for the winter series in India.

I remember watching Willis taking his 8-43. Luckily, we had just broken up from school.
 




Bodian

Well-known member
May 3, 2012
12,302
Cumbria
Has anyone been stumped off a bouncer before today!?

Bit embarrassing for Green tbh.

Thing is with a stumping it’s about the batsman out of his crease to the ball, or off balance or going for a run. Bairstow did none of these things, didn’t attempt to hit it, didn’t attempt to run. The ball was effectively dead once caught by the keeper. He actually paused to mark his guard then left his crease - it was absolutely clear he thought it was dead.
Don't think Green will be embarrassed in any way.

If Cummins said something to the effect that they had seen Bairstow wander out of his crease [at the end of the over] a few times - then it strikes me that Carey's throw at the stumps wasn't an 'instinctive reflex action' as they portrayed it on TMS a few times. Indeed, it strikes me that what could well have happened is 'we'll bowl him a bouncer on the last ball of the over, he'll go for a wander as usual, we'll throw at the stumps'. I'm not sure it wasn't actually a calculated ploy - which makes it worse and worse.
 


Sid and the Sharknados

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Sep 4, 2022
4,492
Darlington
Oh blimey, you did well to survive without trauma, Headingley excepted.

My first series was The Ashes in 1981, so there was credit in the cricket bank for the winter series in India.

I remember watching Willis taking his 8-43. Luckily, we had just broken up from school.
I have a very clear image of Darren Gough knocking Mark Waugh's middle stump out at the Oval.
I was surprised that he didn't seem to be happy about this, until my brother pointed out that the Australians were 500/3 at the time.
He'd realised you could, in fact, tell who was winning in cricket by then. :lolol:
 


dangull

Well-known member
Feb 24, 2013
5,120
If Bairstow had got in, him and Stokes may have won one of the most exciting Test matches ever..
The Aussies spoilt that with a dubious, not in the spirit of the game decision.
Another nail in the coffin of a form of the game which is being overtaken by one day cricket.
 


Arkwright

Arkwright
Oct 26, 2010
2,802
Caterham, Surrey
Don't think Green will be embarrassed in any way.

If Cummins said something to the effect that they had seen Bairstow wander out of his crease [at the end of the over] a few times - then it strikes me that Carey's throw at the stumps wasn't an 'instinctive reflex action' as they portrayed it on TMS a few times. Indeed, it strikes me that what could well have happened is 'we'll bowl him a bouncer on the last ball of the over, he'll go for a wander as usual, we'll throw at the stumps'. I'm not sure it wasn't actually a calculated ploy - which makes it worse and worse.
Of course it was intentional, Carey hadn't attempted it previously during the series.
If it's in the Laws the Aussies think it's fair game.
It's poor in my books but I'm only a club cricketer who plays for a hobby and not an international playing for a central contract.
 




Flagship

Well-known member
Jan 15, 2018
424
Brighton
As Bairstow was walking down the pitch, the umpire at the bowler's end was fiddling round with clothing around his waist, so clearly, like Bairstow, was acting like the ball was dead and not paying attention to the game.
 


Scappa

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2017
1,406
Of course it was intentional, Carey hadn't attempted it previously during the series.
If it's in the Laws the Aussies think it's fair game.
It's poor in my books but I'm only a club cricketer who plays for a hobby and not an international playing for a central contract.
It's a poor reflection on the Aussies if they've looked at Bairstow and thought
"Aw look mate, that's the only way we'll get him out"
"Aw look mate, fair dinkum"
"Aw look mate, yeah nah. Bonzer."
 
Last edited:


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here