Cricket Thread

[Any1aBlue]

Cummins should just have called Bairstow back in the goodwill of the game which is allowed in cricketing rules …….. he didn’t he and his team exuberantly celebrated instead. Absolute fucking cheating cunts , you reap what you sow Man City know everything about that . Australian cricket cheat to gain an advantage fuck them absolute cunts of the highest order.

No, you are wrong - they weren’t cheating. Let’s be clear about that first of all. Bairstow was out according to the rules of the game.

However - the spirit of the game is more important, or it should be. The match result will be forgotten in time, as will who won the ashes in 2023. But what won’t be forgotten, or forgiven was the decision of Cummings not to recall bairstow.
It’s up there with Maradonna- no one remembers his incredible goal thereafter, nor that Argentina went on to win the cup - they remember’the hand of god’. These things matter. Many years from now, Cummings will be remembered for that and not winning the match itself.

 

[Kippax Street 1880]

Was a snidey way to get someone out. He wasnt beaten by the ball coming down the pitch or trying to nick a single. Cummins should have retracted his appeal. They would have won anyway, I think the atmosphere they created after Bairstow got out made things much harder for them. Great innings from Stokes but yet again you look back to a brainless period 3rd morning where we gifted them the initiative. Not much between the two sides really but we're 2-0 down either way. Be very very tough from here.

 

[goalmole]

Can someone give me a basic explanation of what the controversy is please?
Keep in mind that I know nothing about cricket.

Seeing as you know nothing about cricket, here's something to get you started:

• You have two sides, one out in the field and one in.
• Each man that’s in the side that’s in the field goes out and when he’s out comes in and the next man goes in until he’s out.
• When a man goes out to go in, the men who are out try to get him out, and when he is out he goes in and the next man in goes out and goes in.
• When they are all out, the side that’s out comes in and the side that’s been in goes out and tries to get those coming in out.
• Sometimes there are men still in and not out.
• There are men called umpires who stay out all the time, and they decide when the men who are in are out.
• Depending on the weather and the light, the umpires can also send everybody in, no matter whether they’re in or out.
• When both sides have been in and all the men are out (including those who are not out), then the game is finished.

Hope this helps.

 

[Barcon]

Seeing as you know nothing about cricket, here's something to get you started:

• You have two sides, one out in the field and one in.
• Each man that’s in the side that’s in the field goes out and when he’s out comes in and the next man goes in until he’s out.
• When a man goes out to go in, the men who are out try to get him out, and when he is out he goes in and the next man in goes out and goes in.
• When they are all out, the side that’s out comes in and the side that’s been in goes out and tries to get those coming in out.
• Sometimes there are men still in and not out.
• There are men called umpires who stay out all the time, and they decide when the men who are in are out.
• Depending on the weather and the light, the umpires can also send everybody in, no matter whether they’re in or out.
• When both sides have been in and all the men are out (including those who are not out), then the game is finished.

Hope this helps.

Say out and in one more time. Go on, say it.

 

[jimharri]

Was a snidey way to get someone out. He wasnt beaten by the ball coming down the pitch or trying to nick a single. Cummins should have retracted his appeal. They would have won anyway, I think the atmosphere they created after Bairstow got out made things much harder for them. Great innings from Stokes but yet again you look back to a brainless period 3rd morning where we gifted them the initiative. Not much between the two sides really but we're 2-0 down either way. Be very very tough from here.

Agreed. Their worst decision of the series, by a distance.

 

[Corky]

No, you are wrong - they weren’t cheating. Let’s be clear about that first of all. Bairstow was out according to the rules of the game.

However - the spirit of the game is more important, or it should be. The match result will be forgotten in time, as will who won the ashes in 2023. But what won’t be forgotten, or forgiven was the decision of Cummings not to recall bairstow.
It’s up there with Maradonna- no one remembers his incredible goal thereafter, nor that Argentina went on to win the cup - they remember’the hand of god’. These things matter. Many years from now, Cummings will be remembered for that and not winning the match itself.

Only England fans remember the handball but not the Dennis Wise handball goal which clinched Euro 92 qualification.

Same with the cricket, they would all have celebrated it going the other way.

 

[Jesus H Gabz]

No, you are wrong - they weren’t cheating. Let’s be clear about that first of all. Bairstow was out according to the rules of the game.

I hope I don’t catch you slating Atwell & co for their refereeing performances next season, you know things like calling them cheating cunts, because it’s all in the rules of association football ;)

 

[TinFoilHat]

I think we can agree both England and Australia have cunts in their line ups.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

I think we can agree both England and Australia have cunts in their line ups.

Austrailians are just better at being one. Cummins has experienced c***s like Warner and Smith to learn from.

 

[Edghill OG]

I think we can agree both England and Australia have cunts in their line ups.

Difference being Australia usually have 11 in theirs.

 

[Onholiday(somemightsay)]

That was half my point. I bet a large number of the population don't even know he's PM.

It's a fair point - quite the easy retort for Cummins ........... :-)

 

[homerdog]

Rewatch the incident in the clip I've posted and you'll see that Bairstow ducks, the ball passes over his head, Bairstow at no point thereafter looks behind him to see what has happened to the ball. He doesn't even watch it into the keepers hands. For all he knows, the keeper could have missed the take, dropped the take, it could be going for byes, in any of these scenarios the ball would have been alive and Bairstow wouldn't have been any the wiser.
For argument's sake, what if the keeper had dropped the take, Bairstow had walked out of his crease, the keeper had picked up the ball and thrown it at the stumps?
At the very least it was sloppy and gormless cricket from Bairstow.
If anyone wants to look at the link I've posted, it shows that at no time was the ball settled in the keepers hands. He receives the ball and throws it at the wicket in one fluid action.
There was never a pause or hiatus in play.
There was only one person to blame for Bairstow losing his wicket, and that was Bairstow.

You're completely missing the point, along with all the others trying to justify Australia's unsporting behaviour.

 

[RiversideBlue]

Australia tried to claim two catches where they grounded the ball, one of which they got away with, and then that Bairstow dismissal. No class at all.

 

[Lovebitesandeveryfing]

Hopefully England can put this behind them and find a way to wind them up in the next game.

I hope England don't put it behind them. They were hopping mad. I don't think for one second that Stokes would have played that innings for the ages if he hadn't been. I hope they take that fury to Headingley, and channel it.

 

[Postman Pep]

The LFC of cricket

 

[Nellies left peg]

Bairstow believed the over was completed and the ball was dead. Which it was as the ball was in the keepers hands. No way either batsmen were going to take a run. Marked his crease with his foot and then walked towards the middle of the pitch presumably to have a chinwag with Stokes before the next over commenced and the Aussies knocked the bails off his wicket. Umpire even looked confused as hadn't given it. Then the Aussies appealed and it was given out.

The ball wasn’t dead he assumed it was you are correct

 

[Edghill OG]

I hope England don't put it behind them. They were hopping mad. I don't think for one second that Stokes would have played that innings for the ages if he hadn't been. I hope they take that fury to Headingley, and channel it.

Agree 100 percent. It tastes so sour as if it hadn't happened I think Australia would have won by 100+ runs anyway. The Aussies will do anything to win as they've demonstrated time and again.

The sense of injustice seemed to galvanise everybody. Stokes in particular, the crowd and even the old toffs in the Long Room. The Aussies didn't expect that reaction- particularly being at Lords- and I think the incident is the worst thing they could have done. They looked flustered and it's a shame we didn't pull off the impossible. Carry that anger onto Headingley, get it back to 2-1 and go from there.

 

[TinFoilHat]

Austrailians are just better at being one. Cummins has experienced c***s like Warner and Smith to learn from.

Can't argue with that.

Caught cheating in the past and acting like they were victims.

Sounds familiar...

 

[Postman Pep]

Like these fuckers wouldn't have been whining about the Starc non catch if things had gone differently yesterday.

 

[levets]

It's a bit astonishing that Boycott, who played dozens and dozens of times against the Aussies and should know them inside out, imagines that they'll do any such thing.
They are, and always have been, a team that's prepared to do anything that's right on the line of what's acceptable to win. No way will they apologize. They wouldn't be Australians.
I'm hoping that this means that the England players will go into the last three tests with fire in their bellies.

The Headingly and Old Trafford crowd will be well up for it now.