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.

1 minute ago, wilsdenrover said:

Is this one from our coach any different??

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.

26 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

The MCC need to grow a pair. Disgraceful action by them and grovelling to the Aussies. 

Aussies got the right treatment from the members. 

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

8 minutes ago, Ianrally said:

On my many trips to Australia I’ve never had a problem with any Aussie, but it seems that Australians over here continually go on about whinging poms. That should be turned round to whinging diggers after yesterdays debacle in the long room. If they thought that welcome was bad, wait for the one they’ll get from the west stand at Headingley. 
The MCC need to grow some as well, grovelling to the Aussies just like the did after the Adelaide test in 1933. Please don’t tell me it doesn’t matter because it was a long time ago, they bring it up all the time in Australia. 
 

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.

1 minute ago, Silas said:

Went for 4 didn't it? Or is my memory letting me down.

He's not going to give 4 dot balls back. 🤷‍♂️

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.

6 minutes ago, Silas said:

By 'unfair' I read 'accidental', because that's what the ball bouncing off the bat was.

Not planned and premeditated like yesterday. 

If we want to go down that road how about we disallow every deflected goal in football. Ball bounces off the back of defenders head = "That's an unfortunate accident, we just chalk that off right?" 🤔

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.

15 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

down to the umpire to make the correct decision there and if they don't make the right decision there then the fielding side can appeal to the 3rd Umpire. Also it complete different situation the Bairstow dismissal 

You are trying to mix in every type of dismissal here

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)?

30 minutes ago, Silas said:

Perfect example of why these are false comparisons.

The batter here is still in shot action stance. Totally legitimate. 

Now if that batter had stood up, grounded his bat, and marked the floor with his foot, I'm 100% sure Foakes wouldn't be looking for the stumping anymore.

But since the batter overbalanced his weight while still in this pose there was an opportunity of a stumping.

It's like chalk and cheese compared to yesterday. Don't know how people are struggling with this. 

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.

32 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Spirit of Cricket | MCC (lords.org)

The spirit of cricket is a myth, there is nothing that there to suggest there was anything untoward with yesterdays dismissal.

27 minutes ago, jim mk2 said:

Could the umpires have over-ruled VAR and said they considered the over to be over and the ball dead? I don't know

On another note, there's a good piece in the Times today by Simon Wilde IIRC saying the opposition's hard work to restore their reputation since Sandpapergate has been thrown away after yesterday's furore. 

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.

29 minutes ago, Exiled_Rover said:

While I'm replying to you I'll also add (rather than finding the exact thing to quote) - they're only a good Australian side, but Test cricket has fallen off so much since the invention of T20 that good is enough. They're by far the best Test side in the world. 

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.

2 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Its come back to spirit of the game and that if you watch the TV coverage Both umpires starting moving and it looks it was over. Neither umpire was watching the play and that's why it had to the refer the 3rd umpire. He made his decision based on the footage he watched which was technical the right decision but was it within the spirit of the game, not for me. That the problem, no doubt we see more of this sort of stuff during the rest of the test series 

What is the spirit of the game?

7 minutes ago, Exiled_Rover said:

He wasn't taking the moral high ground, he was speaking from experience. 

He has nearly 600 Test wickets, but all he's remembered for in Australia is not walking when he nicked a ball. It's a fair warning to Carey - his card is marked now, this is all he'll ever be remembered for in England. 

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.

50 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

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"

Australia certainly didn't accept the ball was dead you only had to look at their instant reaction to see that this was something they had spotted Bairstow doing and had planned to punish. The umpires evidently didn't class it as dead and I'm not sure what the crowd have to do with anything. I mean how many times do you hear a crowd cheer a bump ball as a wicket. As for Carey he threw the ball straight away before Bairstow had even left his crease.

50 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

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

That's incorrect Stokes was handed an 8 match ban by the ECB for brining the game into disrepute. Given all the talk about the spirit of cricket (a myth) in regards to yesterday's game I'd say it is relevant the the England Captain has previously been banned and fined for bring that sport into disrepute.

50 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

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

 

The only controversy was whinging from England again the dismal itself was clear cut the ball was going to hit the stumps and run Stokes out so he flung his hand out to stop it from doing so. That is cheating. 

50 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

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

The Sri Lanka New Zealand game does bare relevance as it was a similar situation in that the batsman dozily walked out of his crease before the ball was dead and after that the bails were removed. And it bares even more relevance because the New Zealand wicket keeper who dislodged the bails was one Brendon McCullum and it wasn't the first time he had done it.

42 minutes ago, den said:

Only downside is Lancs charging us £20 for a ticket for the QF shortly after the Roses game was abandoned without a ball being bowled. Non members got their ticket fee refunded.  🤨 Last season it was free for members.

Think yourself lucky it's £41 for me to sit in my usual seat at Taunton on Friday night for the quarter final and that is with the grand total of a £5 members discount.

45 minutes ago, Mellor Rover said:

There was less than two seconds from the time the ball touched Carey's gloves to the bails being on the floor. He wasn't stood there waiting for him to do it.

Carey certainly didn't wait as long as Foakes does here. Now just like with Carey I have no problem with what Foakes does here it is good sharp thinking but I do wonder if those criticising Carey do have a problem?

43 minutes ago, 47er said:

Smith is world class, Labousagne isn't far behind---rated world's best batter and L 2nd and Kawaja has been playing the best cricket of his life. But the real difference in these 2 sides is the attack. Lyons better than anything we have, though out of it now---Starc, Hazelwood and Cummins would all walk into our side. And their keeper has been very sound.

That's what makes things so maddening, we came so close to overcoming all this but threw it away---twice.

I'm not fully convinced by Labuschagne outside of Australia yet. Only averaging 37 with 1 century away from home. 

9 minutes ago, Mellor Rover said:

Should Broad have walked when he middled it to first slip before making a match winning contribution? Is that 'in the spirit of the game? 

I did have to chuckle at Broad yesterday taking the moral high ground.

7 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

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

They were side lined by their own board just as the current England captain was side lined by his own board for bringing the game into disrepute. He has also previously been given out obstructing the field, that is genuinely cheating.

4 minutes ago, Mellor Rover said:

You can't focus on what's not happened though. I personally don't believe with the track records of our squad and coaches that we wouldn't have also appealed. And the crowd would've absolutely loved it too!

One thing we know for certain is that Brendan McCullum the wicket keeper would have done what Carey did as he did a similar thing to Murali in 2006. 

15 hours ago, Ianrally said:

Smith should have never been anywhere near a test match since sandpapergate. 

He's not the first and he's not that last to get done for ball tampering, Smith was given a disproportionate ban by his own board and has served his time compare that to Atherton when he was caught he continued on as captain into the next test.

3 hours ago, AllRoverAsia said:

We will do well to avoid being whitewashed.

We won't be whitewashed, this Aussie team is good but not great.

4 hours ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

Just to clarify my thoughts about the Bairstow incident. It wasn’t cheating any more than Chappel bowling underarm to prevent the batsman hitting a six was cheating. You were allowed to bowl underarm. However both incidents rode roughshod over the ethos of the game of cricket and lowered the standards expected from players. It’s significant that both culprits were Australians whose “ win at all costs “ methods cross the line of sportsmanship. If the roles had have been reversed and Bairstow had have run out Carey I would have been deeply embarrassed.

Some jingoistic nonsense here. The underarm incident was wrong and a clear gap in the rules which was changed after it was exploited for the first time. The Bairstow dismal and similar ones have happened numerous times over the years and the laws have not been changed because it is not exploiting the rules it is just sharp fielding taking advantage of gormless batting, just like when de Grandhomme was run out at Lords last year, or when Brendan McCullum whipped the bails of to run Murali out in 2006. The only person to blame for all 3 of those dismals are the dozy batsmen.

As for the win at all costs attitude an Aussie would point to 32/33 with England exploiting the rules to win at all costs in regard to bodyline. Personally I would disagree with that and believe that bodyline was a fair tactic that used the full potential of a frighteningly quick attack and troubled the greatest player the game will ever see to deliver arguably England's greatest ever series victory. They could also point to the fact that England have the second most players out obstructing the field in international cricket, including the only one in a test match, that is cheating & against the laws of the game. They could also point to Paul Collingwood upholding the appeal to run out Grant Elliott in 2008. Was using Murray Mints to shine the ball riding roughshod over the ethos of the game of cricket and lowering the standards expected from players? Again I personally don't have a problem with it but it is another thing a jingoistic Aussie might point to about England

As for your talk of the ethos of the game England are captained by a man who has been given out obstructing the field after using his hand to stop the ball from hitting the stumps to run him out. When Stokes got a fortunate 4 overthrows of his bat in the World Cup final did he worry about that? Surely if he wanted to uphold the spirit he should have just blocked the next ball out. And don't forget that the England captain has also been fined and banned by his own board for bringing the game into disrepute.

33 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

We lost 3 in a row? We beat Ireland didn't we? 

If you want to count the Ireland result then carry on. But I don't class that 4 day game as a proper test match. Ireland should be nowhere near test cricket they are a team of county 2XI standard players from a country that does not even have a first class competition.

2 minutes ago, Gav said:

You said it’s a results business, those are the results under coach and captain.

This series isn’t done with yet.

Only one side have ever come back from 2-0 to win and they had Bradman and won arguably the greatest test ever to start the comeback. It's still plausible that England could draw the series but the chances of winning 3 in a row to get the urn back are very very slim.

3 minutes ago, Gav said:

They have won 11 of 13 Tests since Brendon McCullum and Ben Stokes took over, including a historic win in Pakistan, results have been superb.

And now they have lost 3 in a row.

8 minutes ago, Exiled_Rover said:

They can only play the cards they're dealt - they haven't been dealt many top-class Test players.

Only Root would get in the Aussie XI.

You don't think Stokes gets in over Green?

1 minute ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

And nothing has changed.

I must have missed them bowling under arm in this test.

4 minutes ago, Gav said:

Well done to Aussies, best team in the world and at times they've showed it, despite trying to cheat.

For all the critics of bazball, here is the scorecard from the last England test innings before the Bazball revolution.

West Indies won by 10wkts

I can’t wait to go back to those halcyon days, can you…..

 

And here are England's previous results from the last 5 home Ashes series. The 'Bazball revolution' is on the cusp of delivering a first loss at home to Australia in 22 years.

Just now, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

Trevor Chappell - need I say more. Anybody who thought Australians were sportsmen wised up after that.

That was 42 years for god sake.

7 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

I would say they were others who deserved that Man of the match award likes Stokes, Tongue, Starc. 

The first innings was the difference between the two teams England put them in and by your own admission they were perfect bowling conditions and Smith stood up a made a fine century. I'd have thought you'd have learnt after the first test that first innings runs are vital.