Ashes 2023

[andrewn9]

'Foakes held the ball for an eternity'. No, just no. I've watched it on YouTube.

Not walking, rightly or wrongly, is just part of the game now, and has been for decades. Running people out because they think it's dead ball at the end of the over is a new and peculiarly Australian tactic, so kudos to you guys on that for bringing a whole new element to the game!

Watch it again, he certainly held it longer than Carey did that's for sure

Again you are picking and choosing what suits your agenda. You are trying to say that Australia whilst not breaking any rules have contradicted the spirit of the game and therefore should be ashamed. But England who have actually broken a rule, or allowed the umpire to let them break it are not breaching the spirit of the game and therefore it's fair play and they continue to be the bastions of the integrity of the sport?

The fact you can't even admit to England breaching the 'spirit of the game' shows you are in fact the deluded one

Foakes stumped Balbirnie overbalancing after the act of playing a shot. There was no controversy after it. I don't remember any Irish outcry. So the fact you're referring to that means you're really grasping at straws.

You have a habit of putting words in people's mouths that they never said. I'm sure many teams over the years have pushed the 'spirit' as far as they could, England included, and I've never said England were the bastions of the integrity of the sport. I simply think running out Bairstow in that way capitalised on a bit of a grey area in the rules and was a cheap shot. If you're happy with that, go forth and rejoice. The funny thing is your team is good enough that it doesn't need to resort to such tactics.

[zimbos_05]

Foakes stumped Balbirnie overbalancing after the act of playing a shot. There was no controversy after it. I don't remember any Irish outcry. So the fact you're referring to that means you're really grasping at straws.

You have a habit of putting words in people's mouths that they never said. I'm sure many teams over the years have pushed the 'spirit' as far as they could, England included, and I've never said England were the bastions of the integrity of the sport. I simply think running out Bairstow in that way capitalised on a bit of a grey area in the rules and was a cheap shot. If you're happy with that, go forth and rejoice. The funny thing is your team is good enough that it doesn't need to resort to such tactics.

Not sure which youtube clip you watched because Balbirnie was not overbalanced. He slightly raised his foot as one naturally does when they are trying to reposition (because of all the gear they are wearing) to stand back up. Foakes is just waiting even though Balbirnie is behind the crease the whole time.

It is not up to the batsman to declare end of the over. It is the umpires job, and not determined by when the batsman thinks the over is up. Simple as that. Australia noticed Bairstow doing this regularly and took advantage of him being naive and dumb.

For England to then come and carry on about "spirit of cricket" when there is multiple evidence of them not doing the same is highly laughable. Broad of all people having a go at Carey and carrying on like some sort of Messiah, when he himself has not done the same thing, needs to check himself.

As for your claim that Marnus was trying to gain an unfair advantage, since when did standing just outsides one crease become an unfair advantage? Plus, Marnus foot is well behind the line when Bairstow throws the ball.

The thing is though, it was not a cheap shot. It was game awareness and alertness. They identified an opportunity that Bairstow was presenting quite regularly and they took advantage of it. Only England seem to think it was.

[andrewn9]

Foakes stumped Balbirnie overbalancing after the act of playing a shot. There was no controversy after it. I don't remember any Irish outcry. So the fact you're referring to that means you're really grasping at straws.

You have a habit of putting words in people's mouths that they never said. I'm sure many teams over the years have pushed the 'spirit' as far as they could, England included, and I've never said England were the bastions of the integrity of the sport. I simply think running out Bairstow in that way capitalised on a bit of a grey area in the rules and was a cheap shot. If you're happy with that, go forth and rejoice. The funny thing is your team is good enough that it doesn't need to resort to such tactics.

Not sure which youtube clip you watched because Balbirnie was not overbalanced. He slightly raised his foot as one naturally does when they are trying to reposition (because of all the gear they are wearing) to stand back up. Foakes is just waiting even though Balbirnie is behind the crease the whole time.

It is not up to the batsman to declare end of the over. It is the umpires job, and not determined by when the batsman thinks the over is up. Simple as that. Australia noticed Bairstow doing this regularly and took advantage of him being naive and dumb.

For England to then come and carry on about "spirit of cricket" when there is multiple evidence of them not doing the same is highly laughable. Broad of all people having a go at Carey and carrying on like some sort of Messiah, when he himself has not done the same thing, needs to check himself.

As for your claim that Marnus was trying to gain an unfair advantage, since when did standing just outsides one crease become an unfair advantage? Plus, Marnus foot is well behind the line when Bairstow throws the ball.

The thing is though, it was not a cheap shot. It was game awareness and alertness. They identified an opportunity that Bairstow was presenting quite regularly and they took advantage of it. Only England seem to think it was.

Marnus batting outside of his crease is not an unfair advantage but it is an advantage. He is trying to negate a swinging ball and thus be less likely to be dismissed. By having a shy at the stumps you are giving the batsman food for thought about whether that tactic is really such a good idea.

Of all the incidents you mentioned, the Bairstow dismissal is most like McCullum running out Murali and Mpofu. In 2016 he apologized to Murali for this (I think Chris is still waiting! ). That is to his credit. Maybe in a few years Cummins or Carey might do likewise.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=J1APBiV92 ... V0IG11cmxp

[jaybro]

Foakes stumped Balbirnie overbalancing after the act of playing a shot. There was no controversy after it. I don't remember any Irish outcry. So the fact you're referring to that means you're really grasping at straws.

Wrong, Balbirnie was not over balanced, he had played the shot and Foakes waited for him to lift his foot, just like the below footage of poor little Jonny Bairstow doing for Yorkshire a few years back and being quite proud of himself

https://www.foxsports.com.au/cricket/th ... 4EOXuvnlHA

A quote from poor little Jonny “I saw him lift his foot and I took the bails off, luckily it was one of those that kind of went for us there,” Bairstow said.

“I saw Matt Prior do it against South Africa at Lord’s and it’s just something that’s luck of the draw. You can’t really practice, it’s just one that goes your way.”

But it’s his final 12-word remark that really puts the nail in the coffin and shuts down any argument England have attempted to make since the loss.

“It’s within the rules of the game and that’s how it is,” he said.

Please explain to me the difference here, Patel wasn't batting out of his crease and Bairstow held the ball a lot longer than Carey and waited for Patel to step out of his crease.

You have a habit of putting words in people's mouths that they never said. I'm sure many teams over the years have pushed the 'spirit' as far as they could, England included, and I've never said England were the bastions of the integrity of the sport. I simply think running out Bairstow in that way capitalised on a bit of a grey area in the rules and was a cheap shot. If you're happy with that, go forth and rejoice. The funny thing is your team is good enough that it doesn't need to resort to such tactics.

I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth, it's you and the English cricket team that are doing all of the talking here. They are the ones who seem to think they're above the rest of us and they can pick and choose what is within the spirit of the game and what isn't. Just like you saying it's ok for Bairstow to try and stump Marnus because he's taking mark outside his crease, yet it's not ok for Carey to do the same because he's noticed Biarstow wonders outside his crease.

You're also saying it's ok for Foakes to try to stump Balbirnie because it was in the act of playing a shot despite the fact he'd already played the shot and was simply trying to keep balance. Or that it's within the spirit of the game to nick the ball to slip and stand your ground, it's ok to take advantage there because the umpire missed it, but it's not ok for Australia to take advantage of something totally within the rules?

I said England believe they are the bastions of the game's integrity of the sport because they are the ones putting themselves above the rest of the sport and the rules and telling the rest of the world what is right and wrong, what is within the spirit of the game and what isn't, whilst also contradicting themselves the entire way through.

Also BTW, it was Isabelle Westbury who tweeted the Foakes video which caught my attention, so you are in the fact the only one clutching at straws Sir

[zimbos_05]

Marnus batting outside of his crease is not an unfair advantage but it is an advantage. He is trying to negate a swinging ball and thus be less likely to be dismissed. By having a shy at the stumps you are giving the batsman food for thought about whether that tactic is really such a good idea.

Of all the incidents you mentioned, the Bairstow dismissal is most like McCullum running out Murali and Mpofu. In 2016 he apologized to Murali for this (I think Chris is still waiting! ). That is to his credit. Maybe in a few years Cummins or Carey might do likewise.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=J1APBiV92 ... V0IG11cmxp

I wouldn't call it an advantage as opposed to smart batting. There is an element of tactics in the game and Marnus is doing that. Bowler is doing one thing, batsmen is doing another to try and counter it. If he negates the swing, then bowler needs to think of a new tactic. If you have an issue with where the batsman stands then you might as well get rid of the batter all together because they are making it hard for the bowler to hit the stumps by just being there.

I wasn't trying to draw on exact same instances, but rather Englands argument of "spirit of the game". You don't get to invoke that argument when you have ignored it multiple times yourself.

Cummins and Carey have to apologise to no one. If Bairstow and England can't accept they have messed up, then maybe they shouldn't play the game.

[andrewn9]

Foakes stumped Balbirnie overbalancing after the act of playing a shot. There was no controversy after it. I don't remember any Irish outcry. So the fact you're referring to that means you're really grasping at straws.

Wrong, Balbirnie was not over balanced, he had played the shot and Foakes waited for him to lift his foot, just like the below footage of poor little Jonny Bairstow doing for Yorkshire a few years back and being quite proud of himself

https://www.foxsports.com.au/cricket/th ... 4EOXuvnlHA

A quote from poor little Jonny “I saw him lift his foot and I took the bails off, luckily it was one of those that kind of went for us there,” Bairstow said.

“I saw Matt Prior do it against South Africa at Lord’s and it’s just something that’s luck of the draw. You can’t really practice, it’s just one that goes your way.”

But it’s his final 12-word remark that really puts the nail in the coffin and shuts down any argument England have attempted to make since the loss.

“It’s within the rules of the game and that’s how it is,” he said.

Please explain to me the difference here, Patel wasn't batting out of his crease and Bairstow held the ball a lot longer than Carey and waited for Patel to step out of his crease.

You have a habit of putting words in people's mouths that they never said. I'm sure many teams over the years have pushed the 'spirit' as far as they could, England included, and I've never said England were the bastions of the integrity of the sport. I simply think running out Bairstow in that way capitalised on a bit of a grey area in the rules and was a cheap shot. If you're happy with that, go forth and rejoice. The funny thing is your team is good enough that it doesn't need to resort to such tactics.

I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth, it's you and the English cricket team that are doing all of the talking here. They are the ones who seem to think they're above the rest of us and they can pick and choose what is within the spirit of the game and what isn't. Just like you saying it's ok for Bairstow to try and stump Marnus because he's taking mark outside his crease, yet it's not ok for Carey to do the same because he's noticed Biarstow wonders outside his crease.

You're also saying it's ok for Foakes to try to stump Balbirnie because it was in the act of playing a shot despite the fact he'd already played the shot and was simply trying to keep balance. Or that it's within the spirit of the game to nick the ball to slip and stand your ground, it's ok to take advantage there because the umpire missed it, but it's not ok for Australia to take advantage of something totally within the rules?

I said England believe they are the bastions of the game's integrity of the sport because they are the ones putting themselves above the rest of the sport and the rules and telling the rest of the world what is right and wrong, what is within the spirit of the game and what isn't, whilst also contradicting themselves the entire way through.

Also BTW, it was Isabelle Westbury who tweeted the Foakes video which caught my attention, so you are in the fact the only one clutching at straws Sir

Where do you stand on the McCullum run out of Mpofu?

[Pat_Bee]

David Warner the Wes of Australia lol?

[jaybro]

Foakes stumped Balbirnie overbalancing after the act of playing a shot. There was no controversy after it. I don't remember any Irish outcry. So the fact you're referring to that means you're really grasping at straws.

Wrong, Balbirnie was not over balanced, he had played the shot and Foakes waited for him to lift his foot, just like the below footage of poor little Jonny Bairstow doing for Yorkshire a few years back and being quite proud of himself

https://www.foxsports.com.au/cricket/th ... 4EOXuvnlHA

A quote from poor little Jonny “I saw him lift his foot and I took the bails off, luckily it was one of those that kind of went for us there,” Bairstow said.

“I saw Matt Prior do it against South Africa at Lord’s and it’s just something that’s luck of the draw. You can’t really practice, it’s just one that goes your way.”

But it’s his final 12-word remark that really puts the nail in the coffin and shuts down any argument England have attempted to make since the loss.

“It’s within the rules of the game and that’s how it is,” he said.

Please explain to me the difference here, Patel wasn't batting out of his crease and Bairstow held the ball a lot longer than Carey and waited for Patel to step out of his crease.

You have a habit of putting words in people's mouths that they never said. I'm sure many teams over the years have pushed the 'spirit' as far as they could, England included, and I've never said England were the bastions of the integrity of the sport. I simply think running out Bairstow in that way capitalised on a bit of a grey area in the rules and was a cheap shot. If you're happy with that, go forth and rejoice. The funny thing is your team is good enough that it doesn't need to resort to such tactics.

I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth, it's you and the English cricket team that are doing all of the talking here. They are the ones who seem to think they're above the rest of us and they can pick and choose what is within the spirit of the game and what isn't. Just like you saying it's ok for Bairstow to try and stump Marnus because he's taking mark outside his crease, yet it's not ok for Carey to do the same because he's noticed Biarstow wonders outside his crease.

You're also saying it's ok for Foakes to try to stump Balbirnie because it was in the act of playing a shot despite the fact he'd already played the shot and was simply trying to keep balance. Or that it's within the spirit of the game to nick the ball to slip and stand your ground, it's ok to take advantage there because the umpire missed it, but it's not ok for Australia to take advantage of something totally within the rules?

I said England believe they are the bastions of the game's integrity of the sport because they are the ones putting themselves above the rest of the sport and the rules and telling the rest of the world what is right and wrong, what is within the spirit of the game and what isn't, whilst also contradicting themselves the entire way through.

Also BTW, it was Isabelle Westbury who tweeted the Foakes video which caught my attention, so you are in the fact the only one clutching at straws Sir

Where do you stand on the McCullum run out of Mpofu?

It’s in the rules

This is professional sport not backyard cricket

Mpofu should have known better

[eugene]

Great to see England win the third test. This series is really delivering on excitement. How anyone can prefer T20 franchise stuff to this I don't know.

[sam_ahm]

Anyone here who is supporting Australia and is actually a bit upset that England have made such a strong come back in the series?