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

[CartyDurham]

Yeah I know I just think it sort of helps give the ashes a space where it is the biggest story.

I agree there .

 

[Pothas]

If Australia were 0-2 down my perspective might be different, but it's been a fairly good series so far hasn't it?

First test was a classic and this one had a ton of great moments and see-sawed both ways a fair few times.

Yeah there have been two brilliant matches but for a great series it needs to be close. If this one does end up being one then it will be one of the best ever.

 

[CartyDurham]

England will presumably change the bowling attack

I’ll go for Anderson and Robinson rested. With Woakes and wood coming in

not sure what will happen if they bring
Moeen back

 

[Woodster]

Well I disagree. I have seen many times batsmen acting the way Jonny did before all of the sudden realizing a fielder has some how had a shy at the stumps and missed and they would at least attempt a run. They won't actually run most of the time but at least attempt it

Which means the batsman clearly changed the mind over the nature of the deadness of the ball

Ok mate, well if you think they’d have run, that means the batsman actually did change their mind over whether it’s dead or not and that must mean you’re absolutely right. Everyone can stop discussing it.

 

[Woodster]

England will presumably change the bowling attack

I’ll go for Anderson and Robinson rested. With Woakes and wood coming in

not sure what will happen if they bring
Moeen back

Yes I think Jimmy will certainly miss out at Headingley, especially if the short ball attack is going to continue. Wood would be an obvious replacement.

 

[CartyDurham]

Let’s get back to the first test declaration

 

[Son Of Coco]

Carey didn't cheat you numbskull.
Some ****ing umpire came in and literally dissected and explained the laws and you say "oh he violated the spirit of the game" thats not ****ing cheating ****

Haha yeah

We have England bringing in faux-Bodyline for 3 hours yesterday and ordering their pitches like they're looking at the burger menu at McDonalds, and all of a sudden they're interested in 'the spirit of the game'.

Give me a break.

They played poor cricket for much of this game, and Stokes still nearly bailed them out. Jonny has a chance to return the favour in the next test, but the way he has been going with the gloves, he'll probably hit himself in the face with the ball.

 

[CartyDurham]

Have a good night or day wherever you are

looking forward to Thursday immensely but the weather, may well be a bit dodgy

The only spirit in the game should be whiskey

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Having caught up on the thread I'd just like to say that @Gnske is the undisputed best poster on this site by far.

 

[CartyDurham]

Having caught up on the thread I'd just like to say that @Gnske is the undisputed best poster on this site by far.

He loves teeth and has multiple personalities

which one of them do you like ?

 

[SteveNZ]

I haven't seen the dismissal so obviously I'll hold judgement on that.

But this is another massive red X in the column for spirit of cricket. Laws are laws, by and large they're not open to interpretation or present grey areas (although I'll acknowledge those exist). The spirit of cricket is the opposite. It's outdated. It's too dependent on match and series, situation, personalities, wider contexts, general pressure etc. And it means different things around the world. In India, spirit of cricket is very different to England, to NZ, to West Indies, to anywhere. So how the hell can you expect that to be relevant and have the ability to, in part, govern how the game is played? We're basically choosing to play by a different set of laws below one standard set of laws.

You can't expect Pat Cummins to take a moral high ground. The guy was pillared for any role he played in the Justin Langer scenario, he's been unfairly targeted as a do-gooder because he cares about ethical issues, even though he's been successful as Australian captain and massively so as a player, he still hadn't won the wider acclaim and hero status as most Aussie skippers get. Then he does his thing at Edgbaston, and all of a sudden he is that national hero. All of a sudden, in a heated environment of an Ashes series, he's expected to choose 'spirit' over letting the appointed officials do their job? And if they lose, then somehow England win the Ashes, how does that play out? **** that.

Spirit of cricket is a relic, it's not fit for purpose. Unfortunately, it'll probably take those dinosaurs in the Long Room today yelling abuse at Australia to die out before we can truly get past it.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I don't really get all the fuss. This kind of dismissal actually happens at lower levels more often than you think and keepers are often underarming at the stumps to catch the batsman out of the crease.

I think it looked worse here because Bairstow so quickly walked out of the crease without waiting

I've never seen anyone leave the crease that quickly before. I've seen batsmen turn and look to check the ball is dead before wandering out of the crease many times though.

 

[Shady Slim]

what nonsense is this furore? i thought from the news riff on it that it must’ve been a situation where carey sort of waited for bairstow to lumber out of his crease and snuck in with the ball but it was almost instantaneous upon catching it that he threw!

 

[CartyDurham]

I haven't seen the dismissal so obviously I'll hold judgement on that.

But this is another massive red X in the column for spirit of cricket. Laws are laws, by and large they're not open to interpretation or present grey areas (although I'll acknowledge those exist). The spirit of cricket is the opposite. It's outdated. It's too dependent on match and series, situation, personalities, wider contexts, general pressure etc. And it means different things around the world. In India, spirit of cricket is very different to England, to NZ, to West Indies, to anywhere. So how the hell can you expect that to be relevant and have the ability to, in part, govern how the game is played? We're basically choosing to play by a different set of laws below one standard set of laws.

You can't expect Pat Cummins to take a moral high ground. The guy was pillared for any role he played in the Justin Langer scenario, he's been unfairly targeted as a do-gooder because he cares about ethical issues, even though he's been successful as Australian captain and massively so as a player, he still hadn't won the wider acclaim and hero status as most Aussie skippers get. Then he does his thing at Edgbaston, and all of a sudden he is that national hero. All of a sudden, in a heated environment of an Ashes series, he's expected to choose 'spirit' over letting the appointed officials do their job? And if they lose, then somehow England win the Ashes, how does that play out? **** that.

Spirit of cricket is a relic, it's not fit for purpose. Unfortunately, it'll probably take those dinosaurs in the Long Room today yelling abuse at Australia to die out before we can truly get past it.

Agreed

I’m England but there was nothing wrong with this dismissal

I hope England do the same in the next game

it’s out plain and simple

England lost the game at 45 for 4. That’s what should be getting attention

 

[Socerer 01]

Haha yeah

We have England bringing in faux-Bodyline for 3 hours yesterday and ordering their pitches like they're looking at the burger menu at McDonalds, and all of a sudden they're interested in 'the spirit of the game'.

Give me a break.

They played poor cricket for much of this game, and Stokes still nearly bailed them out. Jonny has a chance to return the favour in the next test, but the way he has been going with the gloves, he'll probably hit himself in the face with the ball.

Jonny already tried this earlier here is one attempt

http://imgur.com/a/JAcQyod

 

[CartyDurham]

what nonsense is this furore? i thought from the news riff on it that it must’ve been a situation where carey sort of waited for bairstow to lumber out of his crease and snuck in with the ball but it was almost instantaneous upon catching it that he threw!

Exactly shady slim. It’s diverting attention away from the real problem

foakes should be keeper and Crawley should be out of the squad

bairstow is a better boundary rider

 

[Ashes81]

I haven't seen the dismissal so obviously I'll hold judgement on that.

But this is another massive red X in the column for spirit of cricket. Laws are laws, by and large they're not open to interpretation or present grey areas (although I'll acknowledge those exist). The spirit of cricket is the opposite. It's outdated. It's too dependent on match and series, situation, personalities, wider contexts, general pressure etc. And it means different things around the world. In India, spirit of cricket is very different to England, to NZ, to West Indies, to anywhere. So how the hell can you expect that to be relevant and have the ability to, in part, govern how the game is played? We're basically choosing to play by a different set of laws below one standard set of laws.

You can't expect Pat Cummins to take a moral high ground. The guy was pillared for any role he played in the Justin Langer scenario, he's been unfairly targeted as a do-gooder because he cares about ethical issues, even though he's been successful as Australian captain and massively so as a player, he still hadn't won the wider acclaim and hero status as most Aussie skippers get. Then he does his thing at Edgbaston, and all of a sudden he is that national hero. All of a sudden, in a heated environment of an Ashes series, he's expected to choose 'spirit' over letting the appointed officials do their job? And if they lose, then somehow England win the Ashes, how does that play out? **** that.

Spirit of cricket is a relic, it's not fit for purpose. Unfortunately, it'll probably take those dinosaurs in the Long Room today yelling abuse at Australia to die out before we can truly get past it.

I largely agree with this but there has to be an element in any sport for doing the right thing.

Say in the next WC final, 6 is needed off the final ball and the bowler delivers an underarm ball - legal yes - the correct thing to do - no.

 

[SteveNZ]

I largely agree with this but there has to be an element in any sport for doing the right thing.

Say in the next WC final,.l 6 is needed off the final ball and the bowler delivers an underarm ball - legal yes - the correct thing to do - no.

Then make it illegal (pretty sure it is?). Anything that isn't the correct thing to do, outlaw it. Then that's your rule book. No more recalling batsmen based on moral grounds. The umpires are the sole adjudicators of the law. We have technology, we don't need spirit of cricket. We could see all we needed to see with that dismissal, there's no grey area. Or there shouldn't be.

 

[Michelle Fivefer]

Exactly shady slim. It’s diverting attention away from the real problem

foakes should be keeper and Crawley should be out of the squad

bairstow is a better boundary rider

Sadly, selectors don’t read this forum.

 

[CartyDurham]

Sadly, selectors don’t read this forum.

I’ve just watched the finish of your match today

wow
Away to lancs. If it’s not on sky , lancs will have a decent stream