I certainly agree with your first bit I couldn't understand the sense in bowling short to Lyon. But I had no moral issue with England bowling short at him if he chooses to go out and bat then he is just another batsman to my mind. But this is where the spirit of cricket is such a clouded thing as it is basically just someone's opinion. I have no problem with bowling short to Lyon or Carey's stumping, you have issues with both, whereas Ben Stokes thought the stumping was not in the spirit but that bowling short to Lyon was. Three different people 3 different positions and in the end we are all right because the spirit of cricket isn't a real thing.

This is a great piece from Jonathan Liew. Our shared values deserve better than a pointless term like ‘spirit of cricket’ | Cricket | The Guardian

But what is the spirit of the game? It is nothing more than opinion and usually brought up by people on the wrong side of something. I notice you are moving before answer my question about whether bowling bouncers and an injured tailender batting on one leg is within the spirit of the game? As I said I have no problem with it just like I didn't with the Bairstow dismissal but some people would take issue with both and that is where the spirit of the game becomes nothing more than a myth because it is simply peoples opinions.

Your comparison with someone breaking their leg had no relevance whatsoever to what happened at Lords on Sunday. Bairstow wasn't injured, he didn't break his leg he just dozily walked out of his crease (and not for the first time) thinking that the ball was dead had he looked around to see if it was he would have seen the ball coming towards the stumps because Carey released the ball whilst Bairstow was still in his crease. I mean I had no problem with England bowling bouncers at Lyon for me if he goes out to bat he is fair game but given that he was actually injured and basically batting on one leg can I assume that you think that England were not bowling within the spirit of the sport? Because some would say that.

You are comparing two separate sports and completely different scenarios. Johnny Bairstow didn't have his leg broken he just wasn't paying attention and dozily walked out of his before the ball was dead.

I have no problem with Makading. The only player cheating there and not playing within the laws of the game is the batsman who is trying to steal ground.

I offered you an explanation of why I mentioned them if you can't comprehend that explanation that's not my problem. I'm not defending Carey because Carey doesn't need defending he did nothing wrong if he did the then Bairstow would not have been given out. I think I've been quite clear that I think that there was nothing untoward with the wicket again if you have not been able to comprehend that from my posts that is not my problems. The only person to blame for the dismissal was dozy Bairstow and the wicket rather summed up England's attitude to batting in this series, lax. I think the spirit of the game is a myth personally because surely if something is within the laws of the game then it is within the spirit. Surely playing by the laws of the game is upholding the spirit of it?

But it is in this country now. Bar a few grounds over the last decade Test cricket has become terrible to watch live in this country, as it is in Australia on the whole.

It's not whataboutery because I don't think Australia did anything wrong as I have clearly said on here. You say two wrongs don't make a right but I have no problem with McCullum's run's against Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe, for me there is nothing wrong with them the only players to blame just like with Bairstow on Sunday is a dozy batsman. I'm am just pointing out McCullum's hypocrisy. On 32/33 I used that in response to a poster saying that it was always Australia who were guilty of I think the phrase was 'bending the rules' or something like that and I was just saying that an Australian might point to England bending the laws first when they used leg theory. I personally have no problem with leg theory bowling I think it was a piece of tactical genius from Jardine that got the best out a genuinely fast bowling attacking, limited the greatest player the game will ever see, beat a very very strong Australia team in their own backyard and delivered perhaps England's greatest ever series victory. As for MCC members I was just pointing out to someone who was championing the spirit of cricket when criticising Australia that it was rather at odds for him to also be championing MCC members shouting abuse at Australia players in the long room. Is that really in the spirit of the game? It's certainly not in the spirit of crowds that I have sat in for 60 odd years. It's good of you to tell me I'm welcome to my opinion. I must have missed you becoming a moderator congrats on that.

If the regulations are still the same as when I was a member and I expect that they still are then from what I have seen online some members overstepped the mark yesterday. And Guy Lavender evidently concurs given that members have been suspended, an apology issued to Australia and he had to address the long room at lunch. No I'm just consistent which I can appreciate is a completely alien concept to you.

The booing started back in 2009 it was directed then Aussie captain Ricky Ponting who wasn't a cheat he played hard but fair and was a wonderful batsman to watch. The booing has carried on ever since, it is rather unedifying and crowd behaviour is only getting worse.

He didn't look very good in the play offs either.

The conduct of the Australian team was fine the conduct from some MCC member less so. Shouting abuse at the opposition should never happen in cricket and certainly not from members of crickets greatest institution (which they brought shame on yesterday). If you are as keen on the spirit of cricket as the poster I was responding to claims to be then I don't think you'd think that was in the spirit. It's certainly not in the spirt of crowds that I have watched cricket in for over 60 years. Not to mention that in this week of all the images were most certainly not what English cricket needed. The tribal football type support of crowds which have long attended one day games are now attending at test matches and it creates an awful atmosphere. Booing Smith when getting his well deserved man of the match award just isn't cricket. This series all we seem to have heard from the crowds is either booing the opposition, chanting juvenile songs or shouting profanities. The ECB need to get a grip of it because when it is spreading to the Lords long room it is clearly a problem. If you were attempting a run though you would be run out. Bairstow was stumped. He regretted it so much that he did it two more times after the first time in 2005. Also he has never apologised for the Zimbabwe one in 2005 he only apologised for the Sri Lanka one and only then 10 years later when he was invited to give the 'spirit of cricket lecture' and Sangakkara (whose century Murali was going to celebrate) was on the panel.

No as usual your one eyedness is tying yourself up in knots. You can't talk about the spirit of cricket and then champion MCC members shouting abuse at the opposing team in the Lords long room and perhaps even more so at the end of the week that English cricket has just had.

The appeal was withdrawn by Vettori not McCullum, McCullum threw the ball at the stumps and appealed. McCullum has a wrap sheet for doing things similar to what Carey did yesterday. No it wasn't and nor was the one against Zimbabwe the year before.

McCullum has a history of doing things similar to what Carey did yesterday, against Zimbabwe in 2005, against Sri Lanka in 2006 and this one here. Fair play to Vettori here he was a bigger man than I would have been after what Collingwood did to New Zealand a year earlier.

One post you are championing the spirit of cricket and the next you are championing people shouting abuse at players.

The scenes in the long room yesterday were truly shocking and it was good to see Guy Lavender deal with it swiftly. And they were the very scenes that English cricket did not need to end this week of all weeks.

That's not what I'm suggesting I have no problem with the game going on as normal if something like that happens accidentally but for those who believe in the mythical spirit of cricket (which I don't believe exists) I just wonder would the right thing not have been for Stokes to just block out the very next ball? These are the sort of rabbit holes that you open up when you bring up the mythical spirit of cricket and what people view as within the spirit or not usually depends on who they want to win that particular game.

For those who talk about the spirit of cricket though would it not have been in the spirit for Stokes to block the next ball?

Great to see Rickie Fowler back in the winners circle and very well deserved with the way he has played this season.

As I said the spirit of cricket is a myth and usually always used by those on the wrong end of something and you perfectly show that here. You think it is within the spirit of cricket to not walk even when you know that you are out (as an England player did) but you think its not it's not in the spirt of cricket to dismiss someone perfectly legitimately (as the Aussies did)?

It's not a false comparison as both player were out stumped. I agree it is a totally legitimate dismissal just as yesterdays was. The batsman had gone through with his shot and it's a good few seconds after the shot is played and the ball settles in Foakes' gloves before that he take the bails of. The batsman is waiting for when he thinks the ball is dead to move his foot. Carey released the ball much quicker than Foakes and before Bairstow had even left his crease. One of @Dreams of 1995 arguments was that the ball had settled in Carey's gloves well I don't think it had but if it had then it had certainly settled in Foakes'. What people some people are struggling with is being one eyed. The spirit of cricket is a myth, there is nothing that there to suggest there was anything untoward with yesterdays dismissal. But they didn't consider it dead if they had over would have been called. If they become the Aussie first team to win here in 22 years they won't care. Unlike England they care about results. I'm not sure I'd say by far I mean in the last 2.5 years they've lost home and away to India in 4 match test series. They've got a good balanced bowling attack for English conditions but outside of Smith their batting isn't anything special. Warner has a poor record in England, Khawaja is solid but nothing spectacular, Head can't play the short ball and Green doesn't look like he can do much other than field.

What is the spirit of the game?

He was taking the moral high ground when he said to Cummins "Literally, that's the worst thing I've ever seen in cricket, that." Broad also said the other day that he has no regrets about not walking and I have no problem with him not walking as its the Umpires job to give him out. Although I'm sure someone like @chaddyrovers would been outraged that Broad did not play within the spirit of the game. Also to be fair to Broad you are doing him a bit of a disservice he didn't nick it he middled it.