Reply With QuoteLooking forward to it. Given the new England style, it will be a real proof of concept vs. the Aussies. They certainly have a dangerous bowling line-up. I suspect this may be a close series.
Anyone there today? Excited? Is Moeen Ali a lucky guy or what!
Can't wait. Summer starts now.
Sent from my M2101K6G using Tapatalk
Looking forward to it. Given the new England style, it will be a real proof of concept vs. the Aussies. They certainly have a dangerous bowling line-up. I suspect this may be a close series.
The only form of cricket I watch or listen to these days. Looking forward to it.
It will either be very close. Or 5-0.Originally Posted by Boss13
Arguably, this is the greatest test of Bazball.
Very true.
I totally agree , also with the previous comment regarding the only form of cricket I listen to these days . Fingers crossed for a close entertaining series .
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
Always an occasion!
Cheers,
Neil.
It's hot!
Sent from my M2101K6G using Tapatalk
Very cagey, conservative cricket
No need for that declaration. Will feel rather silly if end up losing by two wickets.
I get that the timing meant a few overs in the evening at their openers, but in the grand scheme, adding another 30-40 runs would have been more beneficial perhaps.
Root showing his class again, best batsman for England by a country mile, perhaps ever?
Its between him and Chief for best ever. We are lucky to have him.
Yes CHEF is up there too.
I also loved KP for his explosiveness. But that’s a different conversation!
Whoops typo lol
I said to my wife that was a brave declaration if ever I’ve seen one. Declaring on day one with less than 400 is somewhat aggressive. Only time will tell if it was wise, but at least he’s sticking to what he said he would do - results cricket.
it was certainly brave, however the forecast is rain on Sunday, so with a bit a cloud tomorrow the ball might start swinging like swinging thing. I hope.
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
Having a pop at their openers after they'd been standing in a hot field all day didn't seem too bad an idea.
Fair enough, it didn't worked, but it was worth a go.
Just a shame that there will be two refreshed openers at the wicket tomorrow, with runs on the board...
Cook himself will tell you that he was a very limited batsman. He could only play 3 decent shots. But he played them very well.
And don’t confuse a volume of runs as a sign of quality. Modern cricketers play considerable more games than their predecessors.
We never got to see them play but the purists still regards Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hutton or Hammond as the best English batsmen ever.
I think we are all going to have to change our mindset if we're to fully appreciate the point of Bazball. After the New Zealand defeat apparently McCullum just wandered into the dressing room like they'd just finished a training session. When they say they're prepared to lose in the name of entertainment they mean it. They will not be concerned by defeats if it's created a great match/series. I find it a tough one to get my head around too but I do see the point - if test cricket is to be saved it needs to be watchable. I just wonder how long the fans will be on board if these sorts of decisions bring multiple defeats in a row?
On a slight tangent I am not the biggest lover of test cricket and it was only recently I realised why it's never grabbed me. It's because there are no consequences to the result of any given series. If you win, lose or draw you enjoy it and then you move to the next one and the previous match means nothing. I realise we now have the World Test Championship but it feels too inconsequential to this particular viewer. I wonder whether that's why Bazball and "winning is less important than entertainment" is possible? If each test you lost resulted in a struggle towards the foot of a league table from which relegation is possible perhaps you'd find yourself going for victory more (and therefore at times being more pragmatic). I must confess Bazball has grabbed me a little and I have watched more test cricket because of it but I don't like that I felt more disappointed at losing to New Zealand than the players did. Sport should be (has to be?), ultimately, about winning, surely?
Prescient.
A cracking game! Any test that goes to the last hour of the last day with all results possible is noteworthy. Not sure Ali or Bairstow are in great form.
Agreed, and the problem is that whilst Bairstow's keeping might improve, Ali has only very limited time to heal.
It seems odd that we have no-one else being prepared for selection, Leach was never the only spinner available.
England played that pretty bravely, I went to a training session just after the 8th wicket fell, and the Cricinfo windex was 76% Eng, 22% Aus and 2% draw.
I like that England will probably spend 0 minutes examining why they lost, and will 100% focus on the next one instead.
The difficulty is that I still sense that England have a meltdown in them, which means they are likely to lose a 2nd test (but could be saved by weather).
Can they win the other 3 to win the ashes? Will the weather let them? Not sure, but I certainly hope they can
Good post and brings back to focus the idea behing Bazball.
However, I don't buy it. It is like Pep or Klopp saying they don't mind if their keeper and defenders give the ball away whilst playing out from the back as that is their MO. I guess England are trying to take pressure off the results by saying they don't mind if they lose. Of course they mind!
It was just meant to be wasn't it?
Either way, great test and brings some promise for the rest of the series. Four more tests which are that enthralling and we will have a great cricketing summer.
Great game. England are to be applauded for trying to create the circumstances to win the game.
I think in the end if Moeens finger had not fallen off, he may well have had more success and a different outcome. That issue wasn't in play when the declaration was made to be fair.
We also must acknowledge Australia's effort. A great performance from them, never really allowing England to get away at any stage in the game. And held it together in the last innings to complete a 75 year high run chase.
Roll on Wednesday and Lord's.
Sent from my M2101K6G using Tapatalk
Last edited by xxnick1975; 22nd June 2023 at 08:51.
It was an exciting match, and set the series up beautifully. There are a lot of 'what ifs' that could have decided that match, and also the rest of the series. What if Labuschagne or Smith or Warner or Head had got away? What if Anderson and Ali had been fit and/or in form? What if the pitch had had a bit more life in it?
I wonder if England flattered to deceive, and if Australia might work out how to play against us?
This could end up a whitewash.
Huge difference in class between the teams at the moment.
I totally agree with Boss13’s previous observation.
This afternoons TMS commentary was interesting! Jonathan Agnew and Phil Tufnell did exceptionally well when Glenn McGrath lost it and went completely OTT when the 3rd umpire over ruled a Mitchell Starc “ catch “.
I’m afraid Mc Garth made a fool of himself and Jonathan Agnew was extremely professional under severe provocation and stubbornness coupled with more than a hint of country bias .
I would not be surprised if Mr McGrath was not part of the BBC radio commentary team for the rest of this series .
Classic case of act in haste , repent at leisure !
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
Not sure there's a huge difference.
Australia won the first test against the run of play, and they have got themselves into a very strong position in this one, assisted by some poor batting on our part.
Sent from my M2101K6G using Tapatalk
Shocking “sportsmanship “ from the Aussies .
Fully agree and surprised by Cummins, thought he had more to him than that
Sent from my M2101K6G using Tapatalk
Same old Aussies
I`m no cricket expert, far from it, but I struggle to understand how Bairstow was given out. At the point where the ball was caught by the wicket keeper Bairstow was still in the crease, at that the point surely the ball was dead? Seemed like a very harsh decision, definitely against the spirit of the game.
Unfortunately so. Win at all costs and to hell with everything else.
I so hope we win the next 3 tests.
Technically the ball hadn't gone dead as both batting and bowling sides would need to deem it so but it was obvious Bairstow wasn't trying to score a run but was simply walking slowly for a chat with Stokes so it was totally against the spirit of the game.
Hope England 'Mankad' Australia in the next test!
This.
However we lost this test batting in the first innings.
Unfortunately, Bairstow was an idiot. At no point did he even glance back to see where the ball was before strolling out of his crease. If you watch the replay, Carey had already thrown the ball towards the stumps before Bairstow started his walk, because the Aussies had picked up on the fact that Bairstow has a habit of leaving his crease without checking the status of the ball. The ball is not dead as soon as it lands in the Keepers gloves.
Totally classless. A bit like how they are non-stop in the batsman's ear the entire game, if I had a bat in my hand I'd be sorely tempted to lamp one of them.
Not in the Long Room though please - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/66082409
Agreed. However as taken from the Wikipedia article for the previously mentioned 'Mankading':
This kind of run-out is part of the Laws of Cricket, but [...], there is a long term unspoken rule regarding the spirit of the game. This unspoken rule suggests that the bowler or team should warn a player first before performing the run out attempt. This warning could be given verbally, or the bowler can perform the run out before withdrawing the appeal. Dismissals of this type can be controversial, particularly when no warning was given, and often involve the umpires having discussions between themselves and the captain of the bowling side in order to confirm if the captain wishes to continue with the appeal even though these dismissals are simple to adjudicate.
I think the general dissatisfaction primarily arises from the belief that this 'offence' should have been dealt with in a similar manner, in the 'spirit of the game'.
I agree with the above but it is a different situation, not a Mankad.
Bairstow was given out stumped, not run out. There is no rule, unspoken or otherwise, that requires Wicket Keepers to give the Batter a warning before stumping them for leaving the crease when the ball is live.
And given the Aussie’s previous form, there is no way that Bairstow should have gifted them the opportunity to claim such a cheap wicket.
Last edited by hhhh; 2nd July 2023 at 22:06.
It's a Test Match with players that are the most experienced and are at the top level.
From and Aussie point of view - they know the rules and would have discussed how to "play" each player having done their research - with various "plans" in place knowing what Bairstow was likely to do........
OK, they maybe should have warned Bairstow about moving out of his crease at both ends and without such a warning maybe it was not in the Spirit of the Game, but why should they, Bairstow is an experienced professional ..... and maybe this and maybe that.
On this occasion however, I thought that the Aussie wicket keeper's action was a seamless and a natural reaction to seeing a player moving out of his wicket......... it was instinctive
Bairstow did not help himself, he did not look around before he moved forward and did not watch the ball.
Australia are Australia and will always play this way - whether it is "cheating" or not, but they will certainly get some stick from the England supporters for the foreseeable future.
IMHO England are losing these games as much as Australia are winning them and if they continue to act in this way they will lose the next three Tests ........ generally they seems to be acting without any cricket maturity.
Last edited by BillN; 2nd July 2023 at 22:42.
20.1.2 The ball shall be considered to be dead when it is clear to the bowler’s end umpire that the fielding side and both batters at the wicket have ceased to regard it as in play.
It was clear that the fielding side still considered the ball to be in play. Bairstow was careless.
I agree with the notion of it not being in the spirit of the game, which is a shame. But really, Jonny. Schoolboy error.
No surprise for me though.
The Aussies, winning at all costs? They wouldn’t do that, would they?
Best Regards - Peter
I'd hate to be with you when you're on your own.
One thing that is being overlooked a bit. The keeper threw the ball whilst Bairstow was still IN his crease. Yes, it was instinctive. It happens very often, when a keeper whips off the bails to keep a batter on his toes when a spinner is bowling, agreed? This was similar. The keeper may or may not have expected Bairstow to randomly walk forward...that is not his concern...it was a simple case of let's throw at the stumps and see what happens / keep the batter on his toes.
Bairstow decides to wipe his foot in the crease (as above described - amateur) and then walk off without any care of the word. It is totally his fault.
Edit: this incident did fire up Stokes and I guess another way to look at it, if it didn't happen we would not have seen such an iconic innings!
I am in no doubt that the right thing to do was to withdraw the appeal.
But perhaps the Aussies were still feeling a bit sore after Starc's catch was given not out (and it was not out, he grounded to ball underneath his hand), and they wanted rid of England's last recognised batsman.
Jonny was a bit dumb, but because it was the end of the over, I can also see why he would assume the ball to be dead. He had made no attempt to play the ball that was bowled, and it ended up safely in the keeper's hands, so play was complete and the ball dead, as far as he was concerned.
"Well bowled, Harold."
Bad form from the Aussies but can you honestly expect anything else?
Cheers,
Neil.
Many cricket fans will remember a weeping Steve Smith, having been caught out for ball tampering, pledging that if given another chance never again would he cheat and would do his best to uphold the spirit of the game. Likewise for an equally contrite David Warner.
I think in the context of the above, this was a big opportunity missed by both of them to put their money where their mouth is, go up to Cummins and say 'listen Skip, that's just not cricket, let's withdraw the appeal'.
But of course they didn't. Same old.....
For me, that run out sums up modern sportmanship, win at all costs. I shudder to think what Botham, Gower, Thompson, Lillie and co think about it. Poor action from a national side full of cheats. Will we need to search their pockets again? Maybe they will resort back to under arm bowling? That test will be membered for Ben Stokes fantastic knock, and some diabolical batting by both teams, and Cummin's not man enough to with draw a cowardly appeal.
I don’t think in this case they were cheating, it just goes against the spirit of the game. Also, if the bowling end umpire is watched, he had started to unclip the bowlers hat from his belt and turning away, indicating that he considered the ball to be dead - he had to go to the third umpire for a replay. If the ball was alive, why wasn’t he watching…. It’s just not cricket…
Posting Permissions
