Ashes 2023
-
@MajorRage said in Ashes 2023:
@MN5 said in Ashes 2023:
Basically fickle followers without too much skin in the game taking offence that a couple of kiwis are griping too much and deciding to back Australia as a result.
Que?
I can’t explain it any clearer than that.
-
-
lol Would "We're sorry Bairstow is an idiot" do it?
"It is a shame when something like this happens to
spoil it alla possible England win"Have a look at your mates Broad and Robinson carrying on like a pair of flogs, Geoffrey. After that we can have a chat about the spirit of the game.
-
-
-
@Rapido out of the game for a long time so obviously no aware of "what constitutes a catch" but the guy had control, the ball was not in his finger tips and slipping out of his hands, you could see white knuckles suggesting a firm grip so he just used his the ball as balance hitting the ground. Maybe the rules are stupid because as Ponting suggested how quickly is a ball tossed in the air after other catches. Should there be a catch and release time?
-
@MN5 said in Ashes 2023:
@MajorRage said in Ashes 2023:
@MN5 said in Ashes 2023:
Basically fickle followers without too much skin in the game taking offence that a couple of kiwis are griping too much and deciding to back Australia as a result.
Que?
I can’t explain it any clearer than that.
Well you’re making no sense to me at all.
But my care factor is gone.
-
The Bairstow thing was a bit shit but for me the reaction from the Poms has been very entertaining and very predictable.
It all seems to be based on the 'fact' that is Bairstow hadn't been stumped, England would have cantered to victory. Which ignores all the facts. When Bairstow went England still needed 178 for victory with the last two recognised batsmen at the wicket. Not impossible but without the fuel of righteous indignation would Stokes have cut loose? Would Broad have supported him or reverted to his timid backing away norm?
Not absolutely beyond contemplation but the odds were massively in Aussie's favour.
England did not lose this test because of an act of infamy only slightly less heinous than Pearl Harbour, they lost it because of the sameness of their toothless attack, the 133-8 in the first innings and the 45-4 in the second.
They just weren't good enough and not for the first time when an over-hyped England side (all sports) fails to deliver the fun begins.
-
Boycott is an interesting candidate to moralise. He'll be having fun further fueling the Headingly crowd I guess.
Both sides with some interesting bowling choices to make for the third test. I'd first assumed that Australia would swap Lyon for Murphy, but... depending on the pitch they might be tempted to have their cake & eat it too by playing both Starc and Boland, and trusting Travis Head when needed.
England's current issue with military medium pace being well skewered by Holding. Unless Headingly brings genuine sideways movement.
-
@MajorRage did you fail to see the gagging...
no its easy to agree with the Aussies on this one, if that happened to a Black Cap id be dirty...mostly at the dipshit batsmen.
When you see all the times other Keepers tried the same thing (including Bairstow himself!) its hard to feel any sympathy
Now that ive had to go through this again i feel even dirtier..
-
@Virgil said in Ashes 2023:
@MajorRage did you fail to see the gagging...
no its easy to agree with the Aussies on this one, if that happened to a Black Cap id be dirty...mostly at the dipshit batsmen.
When you see all the times other Keepers tried the same thing (including Bairstow himself!) its hard to feel any sympathy
Now that ive had to go through this again i feel even dirtier..
So if we’ve learnt one thing today gang, it’s the fact that Virgil hates the Poms even more than the Aussies !!!
-
I'm so sick of "defending" England (somebody's got too I suppose), but there are a few points in the below which are worth calling out.
@dogmeat said in Ashes 2023:
The Bairstow thing was a bit shit but for me the reaction from the Poms has been very entertaining and very predictable.
The reaction of almost half of the ex players that Bairstow is in the wrong and they have nothing to whinge about? Hussain, Morgan & Atherton who pretty much so lead the commentary team for a start? Or do you just read the pick n choose quotes from the usual England bashers on this thread?
It all seems to be based on the 'fact' that is Bairstow hadn't been stumped, England would have cantered to victory. Which ignores all the facts. When Bairstow went England still needed 178 for victory with the last two recognised batsmen at the wicket. Not impossible but without the fuel of righteous indignation would Stokes have cut loose? Would Broad have supported him or reverted to his timid backing away norm?
Please find me quotes where anybody has said England would have won without it? I'm sure you'll find some if you trawl through twitter, which has always been the true benchmark of the population.
I literally know NOBODY that thinks that. I played golf today with my son's cricket coach who was in the Long Room on Wednesday (who told me it's full fo a bunch of complete fluffybunnies by the way) and we chatted about it. He didn't think England were going to win and that is the same view of pretty much so the entire cricket club.
Not absolutely beyond contemplation but the odds were massively in Aussie's favour.
England did not lose this test because of an act of infamy only slightly less heinous than Pearl Harbour, they lost it because of the sameness of their toothless attack, the 133-8 in the first innings and the 45-4 in the second.
England lost this match because the sessions they lost, they lost in a big big way. When Oz lost a session, it was usually a close loss. When England lost a session, they got destroyed in it.
They just weren't good enough and not for the first time when an over-hyped England side (all sports) fails to deliver the fun begins.
Well, I certainly agree with this. Had plenty of fun with this over the last few years of living here.
But you really do need to pick n choose who you take rent a quotes from in order to form this view. Yes, the coach and captain have had a few words about it (although neither said they would win if it hadn't happened) but the same would have happened in the reverse.
-
@broughie said in Ashes 2023:
@Rapido out of the game for a long time so obviously no aware of "what constitutes a catch" but the guy had control, the ball was not in his finger tips and slipping out of his hands, you could see white knuckles suggesting a firm grip so he just used his the ball as balance hitting the ground. Maybe the rules are stupid because as Ponting suggested how quickly is a ball tossed in the air after other catches. Should there be a catch and release time?
What i find interesting is that I'm wondering if there is an 'interpretation gap' between Australia and the rest of the world on what constitutes the completion of a catch.
In the Ponting in the video you linked, and I'd already read about McGrath's opinion in a controversy-stoking article which summed up his opinion from his radio work. This morning I watched a clip with Gideon Haigh (who is my favourite cricket journalist) describe that as being 99 out of 100 cricket fans think that is a catch. I don't think iI'm just the 1.
Therefore I put forward the theory that the AFL interpretation of a completed mark has maybe seeped into Australian sporting expectations of a completed cricket catch.
NZ rugby has had these 'interpretation gaps' with other parts of the world (e.g. Britain usually) in our history. E.g. 'over vigorous' rucking back in the day. Tackle heights from the 1990s after NRL and local Pacific Islander influences changed some of the expected norms we were viewing.
-
@broughie said in Ashes 2023:
@Rapido out of the game for a long time so obviously no aware of "what constitutes a catch" but the guy had control, the ball was not in his finger tips and slipping out of his hands, you could see white knuckles suggesting a firm grip so he just used his the ball as balance hitting the ground. Maybe the rules are stupid because as Ponting suggested how quickly is a ball tossed in the air after other catches. Should there be a catch and release time?
On the actual technique / laws.
For me that is so clearly not out.
How far Starc had to dive meant that his dive was too outstretched to be able to do the 'tuck and roll' technique to protect the ball. Fair enough. But - Starc caught with a technique that prevented his elbows bumping the ground in his dive (which is the biggest risk to spilling an otherwise taken diving catch). The 'compromise' to not allowing your elbows to bump was to scrape the ball along the turf. So, not out.
I don't think any law needs to change. As it would impinge on the boundary line catch, which is one of the more spectacular parts of the sport.
It is funny Ponting making a reference to celebrating too quickly. e.g. Herchelle Gibbs in a very famous match Ponting was playing in ....
-
@Rapido Erasmus interpretation made the most sense to me.
“The law is specific in it says that the fielder has to have control of his body and movement. And that particular case, he was still moving and he put the ball on the ground. Now if you take that example and say you were sliding towards the boundary, if you slid into the boundary, we would’ve deemed it either four or six, depending if the ball touched the ground before. So there’s no difference in our interpretation for the catch,”
-
@MajorRage said in Ashes 2023:
@Rapido Erasmus interpretation made the most sense to me.
“The law is specific in it says that the fielder has to have control of his body and movement. And that particular case, he was still moving and he put the ball on the ground. Now if you take that example and say you were sliding towards the boundary, if you slid into the boundary, we would’ve deemed it either four or six, depending if the ball touched the ground before. So there’s no difference in our interpretation for the catch,”
Yip, see Boult's 'catch' in the 2019 wc final.
-
@Rapido said in Ashes 2023:
@MajorRage said in Ashes 2023:
@Rapido Erasmus interpretation made the most sense to me.
“The law is specific in it says that the fielder has to have control of his body and movement. And that particular case, he was still moving and he put the ball on the ground. Now if you take that example and say you were sliding towards the boundary, if you slid into the boundary, we would’ve deemed it either four or six, depending if the ball touched the ground before. So there’s no difference in our interpretation for the catch,”
Yip, see Boult's 'catch' in the 2019 wc final.
The what?
-
Late to the party but I'm of the opinion that the Bairstow stumping is just part of the game and he should be embarrassed by it. As a keeper I used to always try to catch batsmen out with stumpings whether it was to the slow bowlers or pace. A great opportunity was always if a batsmen was batting out of his crease and left the ball, I'd often have a go at stumping him before he could get back. To just wander out of your crease after leaving the ball is idiotic, he won't do it again lol.
