5 minutes ago, jim mk2 said:

250 will be too much for England to chase

Need to knock them over for less than 200

If England are chasing 250 then they will win this test.

6 minutes ago, JohnD said:

So 27 between Broad and Anderson, I wonder out of how many innings?

57 

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

Steve Waugh used to talk about mental disintegration. Well we've certainly seen that from Warner whenever Broad is bowling and the whole Aussie team when Stokes is at the crease. 

Whatever England have to chase second innings here Stokes will fancy it. Australia look a shambles in the field when Stokes is at the crease.

Australia are terrified of Stokes they have no clue how to get him out and are basically just hoping that he miss hits one in the air.

2 hours ago, LeftWinger said:

In theory - the tail is fairly strong.

In theory.

The problem is the tail starts at 7.

2 hours ago, Mellor Rover said:

The Aussies are absolutely ruthless, when their foot is on the throat they keep the pressure on.

They lost 6 wickets for 23 runs yesterday.

6 minutes ago, Silas said:

Pretty hard for that to be true when I've never said that phrase in my life, let alone on here. 

And yet here you are below talking about the spirit of the sport/game in the cricket thread when talking about cricket. Which sport were you talking about then tiddlywinks? 

2 hours ago, Silas said:

So, I'm taking it it's only cricket where being within the laws is keeping the spirit of the sport. 

1 hour ago, Silas said:

But finally, the actual phrase spirit of the game wouldn't exist would it, if it just meant within the laws of the game. Think about it. 

2 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

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!

The player I'd call up is Sam Hain been has a good solid technique, scores at a decent rate which they like and has been scoring runs in County cricket for a good few years now in all formats. It staggers me how he has never in any format been called up to a senior England squad even when they had to select a 2nd XI against Pakistan a few years back he did not get a look in.

23 minutes ago, Silas said:

Works both ways. You haven't answered if you'd celebrate England or Rovers winning from an injury throw in not being given back. 🤷‍♂️

Firstly I don't think it has any relevance whatsoever, secondary I am not particularly passionate about the National Football team so I wouldn't be bothered either way. Although I do seem to remember Raheem Sterling diving to win a penalty to take England to the final of the Euro's, I can only assume that you were outraged by it and cheered for Italy in the final in order to protect the spirit of the sport. 

Thirdly I would cheer Rovers winning anything. 

23 minutes ago, Silas said:

Works both ways. You haven't answered if you'd celebrate England or Rovers winning from an injury throw in not being given back. 🤷‍♂️

But my opinion is he chose to go out on one leg, he gets treated like any other player in the team. Do you think he should be treated differently? This isn't tiddlywinks, it's top level international sport. 

If anything, you target injuries. If a boxer has a busted eye, the opponent is aiming for it. Was watching rugby league just last week when a player (St. Helens I think?) had took a bad knock and was struggling. Moved from half backs to the wing for a rest. 

Some would say as we have already seen from one poster on here for example that bowling short to Lyon was not in the spirit of the game. Nor would some think that targeting a players injury is in the spirit of it. Some would also say that  both sides continuously peppering tailenders with short balls was not in the spirit. That never used to be a part of the game

If you read my posts correctly (which evidently you haven't) you will see I said multiple times that I had no problem with bowling short to Lyon (from a moral/spirit stand point at least).    

You talk about it being top level sport but are then outraged that a player is fairly dismissed because he rather dopily goes for a walk out of his crease before the ball is dead. Would you like Australia to have said 'You've been fairly dismissed Johnny but come back and have another'. 

This is where you end up tying yourself in knots when talking about the 'spirit of cricket' because it is a mythical thing and all it really is, is individual opinions.

1 minute ago, AllRoverAsia said:

Mr Liew produced a long piece of anti English propaganda using cricket as a tool.

His perceived English exceptionalism was the target.

Don't fall for shit like this from a writer with chips on both shoulders.

For me he's the finest sports writer in the country, one of the few who is always worth reading. 

11 minutes ago, oldjamfan1 said:

Aside from the fact they should have been bowling Yorkers to Lyon anyway to get him out I actually don’t think it was in the spirit of the game to send down the short pitched stuff, but I will concede that I might be in the minority on that one.

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

Just now, Silas said:

You asked a question.

The answer is no, categorically. 

I've given you several examples that illustrate this.

You appear to be deflecting and going off on tangents instead of debating in good faith. Fine, I'll move on then.

But finally, the actual phrase spirit of the game wouldn't exist would it, if it just meant within the laws of the game. Think about it. 

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. 

31 minutes ago, Silas said:

So, I'm taking it it's only cricket where being within the laws is keeping the spirit of the sport. 

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.

4 minutes ago, Silas said:

You seem to be ignoring the reverse aspect of this stance that's been mentioned various times in this thread.

So, next season an opposition player gets their leg broken, their team kicks it out. After the player has been given gas and air for 10 mins and stretchered off, we fling the throw in to Gallagher, who does a Cruyff turn followed by a rainbow flick, and then smashes it in the top corner. You celebrating that goal and win then?

Same thing in the Euros Final against Italy. Are you proud of that trophy we've finally achieved after 56 years of hurt.

It's all within the laws of the game, so that's fine right. Well done us!

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.

1 minute ago, oldjamfan1 said:

You don't actually believe this nonsense do you? There are literally dozens of examples of things that are within the laws of the game that aren't within the spirit of cricket. Mankadding someone without giving them prior warning about leaving their ground being the most obvious. 

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.

13 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

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

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?

1 minute ago, Ianrally said:

The football style fans referred to by some on here didn’t start in this country. 

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.

12 hours ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

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?

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.

12 hours ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

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?

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. 

Just now, chaddyrovers said:

Rubbish, the MCC members are more than entitle to voice their opinion and the MCC shouldn't stop them doing that. They are wrong to do so. 

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.

1 minute ago, chaddyrovers said:

Are you Australia Ewood Ace? 

No I'm just consistent which I can appreciate is a completely alien concept to you.

14 minutes ago, jim mk2 said:

They've been booing England teams "down under" ever since we first toured there. In fact they were probably the only cricket crowd in the world to do so until recently. They boo us because they hate the English and our crowds have started booing them because of their perceived cheating. I don't like hearing it at English grounds and I agree we shouldn't resort to their boorish behaviour but the booing is nothing to do with football.

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.

25 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

woah. £14m plus for a keeper who has never played higher than league 1. 

Crazy money

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

37 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

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

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.

27 minutes ago, RoverDom said:

It's bad whoever does it. If we've done it before then we've no right to complain but it's still poor form. For me if you come out of your crease as part of your batting action or in an attempt to get a run then you're fair game for a stumping but if you're doing neither of those things it's a bit poor. 

If you were attempting a run though you would be run out. Bairstow was stumped.

25 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

if you read the link I provide from McCullum's comments he provided you with the answer to that. 

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.

4 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

You are mixing the 2 situations up here whilst they are entirely different situations. 

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.

1 minute ago, Silas said:

Well it was reversed and Collingwood brought back out if that helps any. 

That's what's so confusing about Aussies using it today as evidence that yesterday's dismissal should not have been withdrawn. 

"Here's a precendent that's the opposite of yesterday's outcome. What do have to say about that you whingeing pomms!"

Err..nothing...it stands for itself. 🤷‍♂️

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.

1 minute ago, wilsdenrover said:

I didn’t recall it being reversed - thanks for the reminder.

I don’t think the one by NZ against Sri Lanka was reversed though - or was it?

No it wasn't and nor was the one against Zimbabwe the year before.