Broad first ball at Headingly to Warner, Mankad. See you later Khadjawa.
We aren't here to make friends.
We aren't here to make friends.
Off Topic Cricket Thread
- Thread starter LD19SAFC
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
The ball was done, the over was the done, the batsman wasn't attempting to gain any sort of advantage, he was walking to the middle of the wicket whilst the fielders changed ends. Maybe the laws need changing, as soon as the ball his the wicket keeper's gloves (and there is no run attempted) the ball should be deemed dead.
I would laugh my ****ing cock off if that happened
Bairstow should throw everything, absolutely every ****ing ball back at the stumps as quickly as he can.
This is the way it’s always been when I was playing cricket. If I noticed the batsman was walking down the wicket before the ball left my hand, I’d stop at the crease, look at him and look at the stumps. I’d tell him if he done it again I’d take the bails off.
I didn’t ever do it and I’m not sure I would have done it. Never needed to find out tho, one warning was always enough to stop them doing it.
I was told that when backing up! Didn’t leave my ground again!
The Bairstow thing boils my puss though. They went on about how unfair the rules/laws were regarding Starc taking a catch. Now they say “it’s the rules”. Square keg umpire wasn’t even in position so, if not fir DRS, couldn’t have given him out as he was making his way to the bowlers end stumps. Fir all intents it was a dead ball.
Jim Maxwell said they should have rescinded the appeal. But, he’s a gentleman and a “proper” cricketer. Not in the spirit of the game.
This. Bang on. Pathetic is definitely the word.
The old saying to describe something lawful but not sporting “it’s not cricket” is not used these days. The “spirit” of the game has been eroded over the decades. Sportsmanship was drilled into us as children but sadly even that is in decline.
Win at all costs seems to be the new mantra.
As stokes said, rather not win if I have to resort to that. If you think about it, the Root wicket first innings and the Bairstow one second, chances are we score the runs needed with those 2 wickets. I don’t think there’s any doubt about that personally
We were the masters of our own downfall in both tests. Our lame batting cost us, I don't believe the Aussie cheating cost us the test, but it's just not acceptable to act in that manner. Stealing wickets when you are supposed to be the best team in the world? Very poor
They didn't cheat, its all within the rules...but for over 100 years "The spirit of the game" is as much important as the actual rules. When an umpire states "over" its reasonable for the batsman to assume he can make his way to the middle to chat with the other batsman. Australians know this all too well, if the shoe was on the other foot they would be screaming now. This just makes the last 3 test matches really hostile place for the convicts to play in....no more than they deserve
Yep,spot on mate. It's just like the teams that come to us and time-waste from the very first minute.....it's all about bad behaviour in an attempt to get the win. A symptom of modern life,I'm afraid.
However,what I'm looking to see is an England team that puts these cheating bastards to the sword at Headingley,carries on at OT and finishes them off with a series win at the Oval.
What a great advert for the whole game in England that would be! Bring it on!!
I'm no great fan of Cricket, but the crowd reaction was interesting.
And the abuse directed at the Aussies, when they went into the pavillion, from the assembled Members was something else.
So much for the 'Gentlemans Game'.
I did though see some irony in England's Wiket Keeper being done by the Aussie Wicket keeper,
Surely, of all of Englands players, he was the one who should have been most aware of this rule?
I wonder what the response would have been had the position been the other way round, and it was England doing it to Audtralia?
And the abuse directed at the Aussies, when they went into the pavillion, from the assembled Members was something else.
So much for the 'Gentlemans Game'.
I did though see some irony in England's Wiket Keeper being done by the Aussie Wicket keeper,
Surely, of all of Englands players, he was the one who should have been most aware of this rule?
I wonder what the response would have been had the position been the other way round, and it was England doing it to Audtralia?
Well they did scream when they went through the long room and were called out for Bairstow's wicket - they even intimated that they were assaulted by the spectators that had a go at them even though nothing like that occurred!
Last edited:
I'm not sure why Bairstow should have been the most aware,when any of the fielders could have done it?
I can't speak for others,but my reaction would have been..." I'd rather not try to win the match that way", and,and of our fielders who did it would have dropped in my estimation.
Only issue I have with the whole incident is that both on field umpires have in their body language gave the impression that its 'over'.
Neither are looking when the ball hits the stumps.
For all Bairstow walks out of his ground, when he first looks up the umpire at the non-strikers end is looking down to get the jumper to give to the bowler
The square leg umpire is looking away. Bairstow is that far out of his ground i wondered why does it need to go the the 3rd umpire? Well that because neither of the onfield umpires could have given the decision because neither were watching
Neither are looking when the ball hits the stumps.
For all Bairstow walks out of his ground, when he first looks up the umpire at the non-strikers end is looking down to get the jumper to give to the bowler
The square leg umpire is looking away. Bairstow is that far out of his ground i wondered why does it need to go the the 3rd umpire? Well that because neither of the onfield umpires could have given the decision because neither were watching
Even Indian cricketers are commenting
You must log in or register to see images
Yep. Greg Chappel got his brother to bowl underarm to stop NZ hitting a six off the last ball in a ODI.
There's a pattern. A captain getting someone else to cheat. He did it. Smith did it . Cummins did it.
Agree to an extent. But, without the Smith catch and the Bairstow run out/stumping, I think we win yesterday personally . The “best in the world” label is fair enough, so it may be worth RW e that when we are narrowly losing.