• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

*Official* Second Test (Lord's, London) 28 June–2 July

mackembhoy

International Regular
Mccullum has to go if England lose this series 4-0 or 5-0
Agreed. Stokes can go as captain too.

Nas is absolutely nailing it here.

I'm bloody angry they had amazing chances in both games to grind them into the dust and played like absolute idiots.

But McCullum and Stokes are just talking about two good games, they can **** off.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
How does the Bairstow dismissal differ from the one where India ran out Ian Bell as he walked off for tea? They withdrew that appeal.
I don't think you should be run out if you're not attempting a run (or trying to undo a run), but I'm totally fine with players getting stumped even if they're not intending to be out of their crease. I think that separates them a bit, but I can see why people would have different instincts on that.

You kind of answered your own question there though - one team withdrew the appeal and one didn't. When you leave it up to the teams themselves to decide when to push on with these things you're going to get inconsistencies inherently. Umpires correctly gave both out.
 

Blenkinsop

U19 Vice-Captain
Wut? completely different. You mean the one where they thought it was a boundary and were wandering off for tea? For starters they are different modes of dismissal, this was a stumping and there was no misunderstading as to what happened or where the ball was
I don't think anyone thought it was a boundary. From memory they ran two or three from the last ball before tea, Bell tapped his bat in and walked off towards the pavilion, and one of the Indian players took the bails off. So yes it was a run out rather than a stumping but essentially the same in that the batter believed the ball to be dead.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
I don't think you should be run out if you're not attempting a run (or trying to undo a run), but I'm totally fine with players getting stumped even if they're not intending to be out of their crease. I think that separates them a bit, but I can see why people would have different instincts on that.

You kind of answered your own question there though - one team withdrew the appeal and one didn't. When you leave it up to the teams themselves to decide when to push on with these things you're going to get inconsistencies deliberately. Umpires correctly gave both out.
TBF, we were being mauled in that series. Its not the same situation here. Dare say, if Aus were 3-0 down or whatever as we were, they may have withdrawn this appeal too.
 

Neil Young

State Vice-Captain
Agreed. Stokes can go as captain too.

Nas is absolutely nailing it here.

I'm bloody angry they had amazing chances in both games to grind them into the dust and played like absolute idiots.

But McCullum and Stokes are just talking about two good games, they can **** off.
But what style of cricket got England into a position to 'grind them into the dust' in the first place?
 

Anil

Hall of Fame Member
OK so what if I charge the bowler and just not play a shot and bend down to tend to the pitch
He was not charging the bowler in any way, shape or form…he was actually rooted in his crease when he ducked the bouncer. I get now that by the strictest definition of a stumping, that was out, that is definitely not how most stumpings happen though.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
TBF, we were being mauled in that series. Its not the same situation here. Dare say, if Aus were 3-0 down or whatever as we were, they may have withdrawn this appeal too.
Yeah exactly. When you leave it up to captains rather than umpires, it's not going to be consistent.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
FWIW, I do think Stokes has to take the blame for being 0-2 down here but not for that funky declaration or even the Bazball batting. To me, the costliest mistakes he made this series so far has been the fact that he visibly took it easy once Aus were 8 down last game. Root should not have bowled and they should have known Cummins has become a decent T20 biffer. The game was not won, they (and especially Stokes) seemed to think it was and it is what has cost them.

They could have been 1-1 now if not for that piece of lazy cricket. To me, a lot of the other stuff, even the braindead batting in the first innings here, have been a result of that loss. But it does look like the incident has woken up this team. Will be interesting to see how they go in the remaining tests. I am hoping we get a decider in the last test.
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I don't think anyone thought it was a boundary. From memory they ran two or three from the last ball before tea, Bell tapped his bat in and walked off towards the pavilion, and one of the Indian players took the bails off. So yes it was a run out rather than a stumping but essentially the same in that the batter believed the ball to be dead.
They did think it was a boundary. And no it's still very different. Bairstow walked out of his crease before the ball had even reached the keeper. It was dumb but it was a textbook stumping. It's not like keeper held it for a bit and waited for him to leave the crease before throwing it.

There should have been no doubt that the ball was still live. The batsman being dumb doesn't change that
 

Ashes81

State Vice-Captain
This is literally every stumping.
No it's not.

Most stumpings are caused by the batsman leaving their crease to play a shot. Or occasionally a batsmen over balances playing their shot.

Bairstow did neither - he left his crease after he'd played his shot or in this case after he'd left the ball.

He wasn't playing a shot when he'd left the crease - he presumably was going to tap the pitch down.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
They did think it was a boundary. And no it's still very different. Bairstow walked out of his crease before the ball had even reached the keeper. It was dumb but it was a textbook stumping. It's not like keeper held it for a bit and waited for him to leave the crease before throwing it.

There should have been no doubt that the ball was still live. The batsman being dumb doesn't change that
If Green had been bowling spin with the keeper up and the Bairstow did exactly the same thing people would have just called him an idiot and moved on. You do even see keepers quite regularly delay taking the bails off waiting for the foot to lift.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
If Green had been bowling spin with the keeper up and the Bairstow did exactly the same thing people would have just called him an idiot and moved on. You do even see keepers quite regularly delay taking the bails off waiting for the foot to lift.
Yeah, waiting for the foot to lift as a result of overbalancing from their attempted stroke. Not for the foot to lift to go and talk to the non-striker, come on. :laugh:
 

Ashes81

State Vice-Captain
Ball is dead only when both sides + umpires decide it's dead. The umpires hadn't yet and Carey hadn't yet.
Carey hadn't and it was very smart play. But the umpire had in so far as he wasn't even watching and was giving the bowlers his cap.
 

mackembhoy

International Regular
But what style of cricket got England into a position to 'grind them into the dust' in the first place?
They've become arrogant and believed their own hype.

The style of cricket worked against second and third string attacks.

In the test we had the best attack in the world(having just lost their spinner)without a clue and England just went please have our wickets.

We don't care cos we will chase down whatever you set in us the final innings.(Duckett pretty much said this)

Ashes are over we learnt nothing from Edgbaston and made the same mistakes. They will continue to just make the mistakes and Australia will take advantage.
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yeah, waiting for the foot to lift as a result of overbalancing from their attempted stroke. Not for the foot to lift to go and talk to the non-striker, come on. :laugh:
not even what happened, which you'd know if you had seen it.

He didn't wait at all, that's what we're talking about. Keeper released the ball at the stumps as soon as he collected it. There really should be no controversy, only reason it looks unusual is Bairstow was an idiot
 

Top