International Cricket

[The Journalist]

10 minutes ago, Lrrr said:

Yeah honestly I must have remembered a different ball watching it again

Fair play for being honest!

Like @Fordy62 said, it's worse than a Mankad in that it literally penalises a misunderstanding. It's a pathetic way to dismiss a batsman IMO.

Apologies if someone's already mentioned it, but it's more like this run-out of Ian Bell against India in 2011 (which, again, was basically a misunderstanding and correctly led to him being recalled).

To use Shane Warne's quote on commentary, "in the spirit of the game that's not on".

That's the most like-for-like comparison I can come up with.

Edited July 3, 2023 by The Journalist

[Fordy62]

22 minutes ago, The Journalist said:

Fair play for being honest!

Like @Fordy62 said, it's worse than a Mankad in that it literally penalises a misunderstanding. It's a pathetic way to dismiss a batsman IMO.

Apologies if someone's already mentioned it, but it's more like this run-out of Ian Bell against India in 2011 (which, again, was basically a misunderstanding and correctly led to him being recalled).

To use Shane Warne's quote on commentary, "in the spirit of the game that's not on".

That's the most like-for-like comparison I can come up with.

Thanks mate. That’s an absolutely perfect comparison and just made all the more sweet by the fact the greatest player ever to Grace the game was commentating. God I miss that bloke. 

[And Its Smith]

28 minutes ago, The Journalist said:

Fair play for being honest!

Like @Fordy62 said, it's worse than a Mankad in that it literally penalises a misunderstanding. It's a pathetic way to dismiss a batsman IMO.

Apologies if someone's already mentioned it, but it's more like this run-out of Ian Bell against India in 2011 (which, again, was basically a misunderstanding and correctly led to him being recalled).

To use Shane Warne's quote on commentary, "in the spirit of the game that's not on".

That's the most like-for-like comparison I can come up with.

Good comparison. The Bell one is even worse though. I think they’ve changed the rule since then so that couldn’t happen again. The fielders languid style at getting the ball back once he stands up would be classed as deceiving. 
 

Edit: maybe that rule already existed and it wasn’t implemented properly actually. Can’t remember ! 

Edited July 3, 2023 by And Its Smith

[The Journalist]

3 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

Good comparison. The Bell one is even worse though. I think they’ve changed the rule since then so that couldn’t happen again. The fielders languid style at getting the ball back once he stands up would be classed as deceiving. 
 

Edit: maybe that rule already existed and it wasn’t implemented properly actually. Can’t remember ! 

In fairness, I'm not convinced the India team were being particularly malicious or pre-planned about it. The fielder on the boundary genuinely thought it had gone for four, I think, and after that, even they seemed uncertain... "is he out here? Can we get away with this?" type thing.

So, like with Carey, I don't really blame the player(s). You try things in the heat of the battle and sometimes you maybe push it a bit far.

But the beauty of cricket is that you have that time as a captain to reflect on whether it's the right thing to do and make your own decision. Dhoni got it right and Cummins badly misread the room - it's such a poor misjudgement.

[And Its Smith]

4 minutes ago, The Journalist said:

In fairness, I'm not convinced the India team were being particularly malicious or pre-planned about it. The fielder on the boundary genuinely thought it had gone for four, I think, and after that, even they seemed uncertain... "is he out here? Can we get away with this?" type thing.

So, like with Carey, I don't really blame the player(s). You try things in the heat of the battle and sometimes you maybe push it a bit far.

But the beauty of cricket is that you have that time as a captain to reflect on whether it's the right thing to do and make your own decision. Dhoni got it right and Cummins badly misread the room - it's such a poor misjudgement.

Yep to be fair they did withdraw.  Fair play to them.  It is very poor from Cummins. He seems like a decent guy so I expect he regrets it today.  Think they’d have won anyway as Stokes wouldn’t have been wound up and so probably wouldn’t have scored as many runs 

[Dolman_Stand]

8 minutes ago, The Journalist said:

In fairness, I'm not convinced the India team were being particularly malicious or pre-planned about it. The fielder on the boundary genuinely thought it had gone for four, I think, and after that, even they seemed uncertain... "is he out here? Can we get away with this?" type thing.

So, like with Carey, I don't really blame the player(s). You try things in the heat of the battle and sometimes you maybe push it a bit far.

But the beauty of cricket is that you have that time as a captain to reflect on whether it's the right thing to do and make your own decision. Dhoni got it right and Cummins badly misread the room - it's such a poor misjudgement.

Suppose the difference here us Dhoni had 20 minutes at tea to make that decision and felt the reaction it caused. He is a classier guy than most too which helps.

Can't see the argument for Australia being right in what they did at all,  Bairstow wasn't looking to gain any form of advantage by batting out if his crease or looking to make a run and clearly was under the impression the ball was dead. As others have said its worse than a Mankad dismissal and Cummins should be ashamed for upholding it.

[Dolman_Stand]

5 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

Yep to be fair they did withdraw.  Fair play to them.  It is very poor from Cummins. He seems like a decent guy so I expect he regrets it today.  Think they’d have won anyway as Stokes wouldn’t have been wound up and so probably wouldn’t have scored as many runs 

The counter argument to that is Bairstow could well have made up for it by putting on a decent partnership and getting much closer to the total before the tail was exposed

[Fordy62]

I just really hope we see a Mankad - there can be absolutely no complaints then. In the words of Kevin Keegan, I’d absolutely love it. 

Edited July 3, 2023 by Fordy62

[And Its Smith]

Just now, Dolman_Stand said:

The counter argument to that is Bairstow could well have made up for it by putting on a decent partnership and getting much closer to the total before the tail was exposed

Yeah of course. We will never know obviously but my feeling at the time was it was unnecessary from the point of trying to win 

[ralphindevon]

I don’t get the people saying the ball wasn’t dead, why wasn’t it?

Carey had taken the ball from no shot played, Stokes and Bairstow had made it clear they weren’t running, when exactly is the ball dead? The umpires don’t indicate when a ball is dead after every ball.

Maybe the rules need to be clearer, maybe a batter should tap his bat in the crease to indicate they’ve done running or something?

[Dolman_Stand]

39 minutes ago, Fordy62 said:

I just really hope we see a Mankad - there can be absolutely no complaints then. In the words of Kevin Keegan, I’d absolutely love it. 

Not for me, would be sinking to their level and it would end up being a race to the bottom in terms of who can push the rules the most. Would much rather we take the moral high ground and try to beat them fairly and squarely in front of a hostile atmosphere.

[tin]

2 hours ago, The Journalist said:

Fair play for being honest!

Like @Fordy62 said, it's worse than a Mankad in that it literally penalises a misunderstanding. It's a pathetic way to dismiss a batsman IMO.

Apologies if someone's already mentioned it, but it's more like this run-out of Ian Bell against India in 2011 (which, again, was basically a misunderstanding and correctly led to him being recalled).

To use Shane Warne's quote on commentary, "in the spirit of the game that's not on".

That's the most like-for-like comparison I can come up with.

Good comparison, in which Warne said “it’s not in the spirit of the game”… but for context “it’s just out by the rules of the game”… and it’s “careless from Bell”. The exact same could be said about Bairstow IMO. 

[northsomersetred]

Bartholomew Frinton-Smyth, Lord Humphrey Wigbert-Porter & Quinton Breckinridge.

Some very posh names there

 

[trickytimes]

I have not read the whole thread so this may have been stated already. I see that the umpire reached for the bowler's cap as Carey threw the ball. That to me indicates that the umpire thought the over was completed, so I am not sure why he did not ask Cummins to reconsider the appeal (maybe he did).

[ralphindevon]

11 hours ago, TomF said:

While I agree with a lot of the above I don’t think we’d have won with Bairstow not being run out  

Yoy might be right, we'll never know but we certainly mustn't let this incident gloss over the many other wickets we gifted them. 

[Super]

11 hours ago, TomF said:

While I agree with a lot of the above I don’t think we’d have won with Bairstow not being run out  

You maybe right but we only lost by 43 runs. Not a massive amount.

[Bristol Rob]

 

[Super]

Pope out of the rest of the series.

[DaveInSA]

19 hours ago, Rob k said:

That’s fine I’ve no issue with it really, but you can’t then talk about the ‘spirit of the game’ when you are intentionally cheating by not walking when you 100% know you have hit the ball 

:laugh:. That would be like a defender giving a penalty after he's committed an offence.

[TonyTonyTony]

4 minutes ago, Super said:

Pope out of the rest of the series.

Opportunity to shake things up, or just stick in Dan Lawrence??

[Super]

2 minutes ago, TonyTonyTony said:

Opportunity to shake things up, or just stick in Dan Lawrence??

They could get Foakes in now if they want or just bring in Moeen.

[Northern Red]

It'll be Lawrence. 

If there was any intention of using Foakes they'd have added him to the squad on Sunday.

Edited July 4, 2023 by Northern Red

[1960maaan]

1 minute ago, Super said:

They could get Foakes in now if they want or just bring in Moeen.

That's what I was thinking. Depending on Moheen's finger , it would be an easy way to bring in a spinner, and on his day he's a very good Bat. 
With the Cavalier attitude they've adopted, I doubt they would want to weaken the batting. Although Foakes would add a little common sense to the batting. 

If it was my call, it would be Foakes . It ain't so it wont be. 

[tin]

6 minutes ago, TonyTonyTony said:

Opportunity to shake things up, or just stick in Dan Lawrence??

I bloody hope Lawrence doesn’t come straight in, although he’s scored more first-class runs than Crawley this year.

Get Foakes in at 7 and shunt every batsman above him up one place, or Bohannon’s worth a look at 3 IMO. 

[Northern Red]

If they've made the call that Bairstow will keep then they aren't going to change that after 2 Tests.

[And Its Smith]

Predicted line up 

Crawley

Duckett

Lawrence

Root

Brook

Stokes

Bairstow

Wood

Broad

Robinson

Tongue

[Lrrr]

No changes to the squad so it will be Lawrence in most likely as England probably won’t want to move anyone else to 3 

[tin]

33 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

Predicted line up 

Crawley

Duckett

Lawrence

Root

Brook

Stokes

Bairstow

Wood

Broad

Robinson

Tongue

And there are fitness doubts over Wood as well. I think you’re there or thereabouts with that line-up, the only thing they might do differently is pick Mo over Wood. 

[Super]

This did make me laugh

[Northern Red]

Telegraph reckon Brook will bat at 3, with Moeen, Woakes and Wood coming in. Anderson and Tongue rested.