Jimmy must be wondering why he had to slog it out at Edgbaston whilst Wood gets the lush green of Headingley!! Woakes should find some serious movement on this pitch. Bowl first please

I would say you’re right about being a batsman short Brook hasn’t the best average stats at 3. Don’t know if he’s got the patience in him to be fair

Ollie Pope is going to miss the remainder of the Ashes. It looks like they will call on Dan Lawrence to replace him. Personally think it is a mistake. I would call up Foakes and push Bairstow up the order as both a specialist fielder and batting replacement for Pope. Foakes must be tearing his hair out!

Your 'explanation' is not anything difficult to comprehend. It isn't some fantastical insight into the sport of cricket; it is just pointless whataboutery in my opinion The Australian team has two calculated cheaters in their team. They relish it. It is about time England started acting the same way and give it back

Cheers Gav. It was a great weekend. Beans on toast for the next month though....London has gotten even more expensive than I remember £50 for 2 glasses of wine and 2 beers at the Lyceum Theatre. We kept the receipt as a momento

All you have done is repeat the same stuff you have posted before Nobody cares about Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe or the 1930s. I am lost why you keep repeating it to be honest The current topic is whether or not Bairstow's wicket was unsportsmanlike. Whatever happened before is irrelevant. You have took it upon yourself to be the defender of Carey and the Australian team. Quite why I don't know. If you think the wicket was within the spirit of the game then say it with chest; it doesn't need to be about what has happened before. As though that somehow excuses Carey and Cricket Australia's actions For every incident you bring up of McCullum or the England team there is a similar incident, or worse, performed by Cricket Australia The last sentence is just silly. Not what this thread is about really. It's a civil place here It is a crying shame that this piece of poor sportsmanship has overshadowed an otherwise great game of test cricket. These last 10 pages could have been spent discussing the good of cricket. Instead, once again Cricket Australia find themselves in the middle of a debate around the bad side of the sport

Throughout the debate around the Bairstow incident you have been keen to point out the failures of other people Some would call this whataboutery Personally I don’t think the Murali incident of 2006, the 1930s body line series or the behaviour of the MCC members yesterday are relevant to the wicket. I don’t think two wrongs make a right You are welcome to your opinion on the incident, of course, but you need to tell us why you keep mentioning incidents from over 10 years ago as though they explain the unsportsmanlike conduct of the Australian team only yesterday?

What have the MCC members got to do with the Australian cricket squad and their conduct?

Yeah. I was there Exiled - it looked like your classic end of over action at the wicket As for Mellor and Ewood I’m really not going to go over and over particulars, especially from other incidents. If you think it was a fair out and sportsmanlike that’s fine. It’s done now and we move on to the next game. We aren’t going to agree

He actually was stood there waiting for him to do it Mellor, that’s the thing As I said, Bairstow scratched his crease and the umpire had started to remove the bowlers cap. It’s all on video. It was a technicality because the word “over” was not called. This does imply though that Bairstow was trying to gain an advantage by moving out his crease. If somebody can show me what that advantage is I’d be grateful From where I and millions other Englishmen were sat, the bowl was settled in the wicket keepers gloves

I don't think I have Mellor. I disagree with you on our track record. Most, if not all, of the examples being thrown around are not within the same context of the Carey and Bairstow incident. In the incident of Bairstow he had scratched his crease with his foot; the umpire had got the hat of the bowler out of his pocket. The crowd, the players, all except Carey was acting like the ball was dead. The laws of the dead ball is "finally the bowl has settled in the wicket keepers hands" I don't know why you keep bringing in Stokes being side lined for Stokes was side lined pending an investigation into a fight which happened outside of the sport. He was found not guilty for those crimes. The ECB punished him for bringing the game in to disrepute. As much as you may pretend there isn't, amongst sportsmen at least, there is a marked difference between an incident outside of the sport and an incident within it. It has no relevance in this debate There was also a degree of controversy around Stokes' exit following obstructing the field. He had the ball thrown at him from a very close distance. It seemed like instinct for me as opposed to a calculated effort at cheating. Whereas Warner and Smith orchestrated a concerted effort to cheat and were found guilty for it One thing is for certain though - this incident has overshadowed an otherwise excellent game of cricket. And the fact that such lengths have been gone to in an attempt to justify the Carey decision tells me that it was not within the character of the game The actions of yesterday do not, and have never, justified the actions of today. So talk of 1930s series and a game of Sri Lanka vs NZ years ago do not have any relevance in the discussion around Bairstow's wicket

I don't think we should be focusing on what has gone on before Ewood. At the end of the day, all of the above is trumped with the fact two of Australia's run scorers have both been sidelined for genuinely cheating Whatever has happened previously is irrelevant - the deGrandhomme incident is not even in the same context. Pope was not the wicket keeper at the time of run out and the batter had not grounded either his foot or his bat in the crease. Therefore, there could never ever be any confusion as to whether the bowl was dead or live

Starc grounded that ball. End of story Smith got Root out with a catch that benefitted from the rule changes; in reality the ball touched the ground there as well It really has been a magnificent 10 days of cricket. That innings by Stokes will go down in history. Had we been able to bring it along the line it would have trumped Headingley. The control and the way he manipulated the field was a masterclass; a class of cricket that Stokes shows once a year. He is at his best when his back is to the wall. I have a feeling he knows that now- he now has 3 tests to turn this around. He doesn't strike me as a man who accepts losing despite all the talk of entertainment and Bazball I don't look down on the Australians for the Bairstow wicket because it is what we come to expect. I hope to see that level of nastiness, and gamesmanship, from ourselves at Leeds. The crowd will be hostile and so should we. I'd be looking to bowl both Tongue and Wood and come at Australia with pace. Warner and Khawaja have both shown they are susceptible to Tongue, who was our best bowler by a long way. Be hostile, be aggressive and let's try and turn the anger of the Baristow wicket to change the game Genuinely though, it has been a pleasure to watch this Ashes despite the results. Both games could have gone either way. Yet we find ourselves 2-0 down, with a task in front of us that hasn't been achieved since the 30s. But, you know what, I still think this England squad are in with a chance If anybody knows of any tickets going at Headingley or OT, name your price and message me. It has been sensational so far. I really cannot explain how privileged it felt to be able to see Ben Stokes in that form.

I have never seen us lose a day in person After some fantastic breakfast in Elephant and Castle we are on our way. We will skittle these this morning; give ourselves 300 to chase and Crawley will absolutely piss a century this afternoon I’ve also had a beer with breakfast so I could be talking nonsense

The attacking cricket is definitely playing in our favour. White ball cricket has taken over in England. We don't have the big pool of players to pick from like Australia do. In part because most lads here play football or rugby; cricket is seen as a pursuit for the rich kids. So we have to play to the strengths of our already limited pool of players. I am going to assume Stokes and our Baz recognise that, hence the quick change. As posters have said, it is Bazball that has put us in the positions we have been in. It is also the relentless pursuit of attack that has put us back in precarious positions. I just think we could balance it a little better, which will come with time I hope. Stokes should not have declared with Root at the wicket. Yet, if he did get Warner or Khawaja out in that evening, it would have been a stroke of genius. We should have ducked it out yesterday, but as KP said, if a couple of them had gone for 4 or 6 we would have cut the short bowling out instantly Ultimately I think it is why the posters in here love test cricket. The variance, the ever changing conditions and the speed on which a match can turn...despite it lasting 5 days! We are in for another great day of cricket today (if the weather holds...it's raining in Brum) and for that I am thankful to both England's Bazball and Australia's skill in dealing with it. Only India have come close to matching it so far.

Not to derail the thread.....but why?

I thought this was dropped at the time When it got given out I just assumed it was the picture on my laptop confusing me. It looked for all the world to be a dropped catch

Do agree in some way with this John but there's passages of play that you have to be sensible in They took 3 big wickets by bowling short. There is no way they could have sustained that for a while. We were scoring freely when they pitched up. In my opinion you just soak up the short stuff, let the seamers tire out, and then wait to attack when the part time spinners / tired bowlers pitch up It was a nonsense period of cricket from an England perspective. I don't think it is betraying Bazball to just relax for brief periods

The problem is we put ourselves in the winning position. Then we threw it away and let them back in Lyons went off injured and they had to resort to a short barrage. Why didn't they duck it out and let them tire? Then attack again They were stupid wickets to throw away. Duckett and Root. Especially Root. You can attack and be sensible, they aren't mutually exclusive.

We deserved that Root let off

Lyons going off injured may have just tipped this whole series in our favour

What England have done is take back the initiative. Crawley's wicket was stupid again, but that attacking intent has put us well on track to win our first batting session yet again. You expect Pope and Duckett to now bat the day out. I think this is where "Bazball" has to adapt ever so slightly. It is all well and good going out guns blazing, but at times we need to reign it in.

Brooks would. I'd wager Foakes wouldn't be far off either. Carey is an exceptional wickey, but the truth is Foakes is the best in the world. It is a criminal decision he is not in Pope on his day can knock it around with the best of them too. But with their middle order he wouldn't get in at the moment Maybe a fit Stokes for Green too We don't have a bad side, openers not counting, but seem to bottle it against the Aussies I think if we go into 2nd innings having scored 400 we become favourites. We love a chase Setting itself up nicely for Saturday and Sunday - of which I have tickets again 🙂 Going down London tomorrow night, bit of Lion King in theatre to keep her happy, followed by 2 days at Lords. Perfect weekend

In bat before lunch. Rain cloud looming.... All out for 200 I'm saying

Pears has gotten some very unjustified pelters on here The strange thing is that nobody has argued he is a better goalkeeper than Kaminski. But the situations that posters have chosen to highlight - the Millwall goal and the Coventry goal - are not at all examples of Pears mistake. They are, perhaps, the closest to a mistake he made since he stepped in for Kaminski Pears has had all sorts from his glove work to his charisma (weirdly) slated. It just seems unnecessary to me. Is Thomas Kaminski that irreplaceable? We got him for less than a £1m. He made mistakes too So if highlighting Kaminski's mistakes comes under 'confirmation bias' then what does highlighting Pears' mistakes come under?