Okay, full disclosure. I’m an Aussie fan, writing an opinion piece on an Aussie website. Not exactly screaming a balanced perspective.
However, in light of what has been said following the thrilling end to a great contest at Lord’s, I felt compelled to come on here and write this down. This is the cricket lover in me, not the Aussie fan.
I was up at 6:30am, making the morning coffee and prepping the new dog for their walk, and I got the obligatory message from our hardworking weekend editor, who had wrapped up his Ashes coverage.
“I’m packing the schedule this morning given the controversy.”
Controversy? A new controversy?
Jonny Bairstow looks frustrated after being run out by Alex Carey. (Photo by Mike Egerton/PA Images via Getty Images)
So, I watch the highlights, and Alex Carey’s stumping of Jonny Bairstow roams across my screen. My initial thoughts? Didn’t even bat an eyelid. In fact, I watched the highlights all the way to the end, waiting to see what the controversy was.
So then I go read, and it turns out that in fact it was THAT stumping of Bairstow. Not only that, but the members at Marylebone Cricket Club had abused Aussie players, Ben Stokes and Brendon McCullum had criticised it for not being in the spirit of the game, and Stuart Broad had said it to Carey’s face on the field afterwards.
Really? THAT is what you guys are kicking a stink up about? I’m sorry, but I think I can say with some confidence, having played cricket as an opening batsman and a wicketkeeper in both Australia and in England that most cricketers would consider that dismissal completely fine.
Ben, Brendon, and members of the MCC, sit down. If you think this is not done in the spirit of the game, I actually question how much cricket you’ve actually played. I shouldn’t have to do that, because I know for a fact that you’ve played more than I have.
I’ve seen this sort of dismissal happen multiple times. I’ve DONE it once or twice. The reason why is simple: it’s a case of tactics, like literally everything in cricket.
Isn’t it the first rule of batting to always stay in your crease?
Extraordinary drama as Jonny Bairstow’s all time brain fade get him bizarrely run out
I’m not going to begrudge any batsman who bat out of their crease: in fact, the vast majority of my cricket mates and opening batting partners do. From a tactics standpoint, it makes sense: giving you that extra metre gives the ball less time to swing, helps you to deal with length better, (especially for yorkers), it adds more doubt into the mind of the umpire should an LBW appeal come up: it does a lot.
But if you miss the ball, do you know what all those mates do? They step back into their crease. Some of them have even made it part of their stance and practice it. It’s second nature, because this is the first rule of batting: always stay in the crease. Stepping back in the crease is done for one key reason: to eliminate any chance of the wicket keeper stumping you.
On a personal level, I always bat in my crease, as I personally found having that extra metre or so gave me more time to pick out shots to play, and I’d trust myself to be able to dig out the yorker or deal with the swing.
That’s my point, where you choose to bat and what you do is a case of your tactical approach to counteract the bowler, and as such: you shouldn’t be surprised if a quick-thinking wicket keeper tries to take advantage of that.
In this scenario, there is no case of the spirit of the game being challenged, because the batsman is choosing to bat out of their crease in reaction to the bowling, and the bowling side is reacting to it. How both sides deal with it is where the contest is generated.
This isn’t isolated to subbies cricket either, many international stars have gotten out this way; and Brendon McCullum was responsible for one such instance himself when he dismissed Paul Collingwood in 2009. Even more noticably, Bairstow tried to do the exact same thing to Marnus Labuschagne in the SAME test match, just a few days ago. Bairstow is completely within his rights to do that, Marnus saw it and got his foot back. The cricketer in me has no issue, because this is a tactical part of the game.
This is why the argument of the spirit of the game doesn’t make sense: has the contest been unfairly balanced?
This isn’t an instance of the 1981 underarm bowling incident, where the Chappell brothers up-ended the contest in their favour to stop Brian McKechnie having a fair chance to play a shot. This isn’t even the 2018 Sandpapergate scandal, where Dave Warner and co. deliberately manipulated the match ball in their favour.
You can argue the spirit of the game here, because the game is being objectively tipped in one team’s favour. Objectively, what the Chappell brothers did and what 2018 Australian test cricket leadership group did was not in the spirit of the game.
Can you argue that here? No, I honestly don’t think you can.
Unlike those instances, the balance of the game hasn’t been offset. Cummins shouldn’t have to call Bairstow back, because Bairstow chose to bat out of his crease to counteract Green’s bowling. It was his choice to not step back in his crease. That’s the entire reason why Carey reacted in the first place.
The reason why members of the English team, staff, members of the MCC, the media and the general public are so upset is because of how it looks, the optics: it came at a critical point in a critical Test match in the context of one of the biggest test series in the world.
But the simple truth is that, what transpired on the Lord’s hallowed turf is within the spirit of the game, and completely legal. It was a choice of tactics used by Carey to take advantage of Bairstow forgetting, for one brief moment, the number one rule of batting:
Always stay in your crease.
TheCrazyHorse
Roar Rookie
No. The clear difference between Labuschagne and Bairstow is that Marnus watched the ball to the keepers gloves and Bairstow didn't turn at all. And also Carey is a full time keeper who can actually hit the stumps with a underarm throw.
Jocks Jig
Roar Rookie
Wotten damm luck jonny old thing old spoofer you,those damm colonials have stwuck a fatal blow against our twopps and loyal members. Keep a stiff upper lip old bodger old you and damm these woyal hating twaitorious twetchorious convicted twouble makers!
Strathy
Roar Rookie
The point is a response to the obvious accusation that he's a hypocrite. No more than that.
Gharner
Roar Rookie
And he's entitled to those thoughts. Doesn't mean he gets to be the arbiter of the spirit of the game.
Gharner
Roar Rookie
I pulled something like this off in primary school cricket in the late 90s and no one batted an eyelid.
Strathy
Roar Rookie
If McCullum had come out last night to say he regretted it, I'd obviously have my doubts about how genuine he was. But he said it a few years back, not prompted (to my knowledge) by accusations of hypocrisy. So I don't really see any reason to doubt him. But otherwise, I'm a bit confused by your reply. I was agreeing with you that the McCullum run outs did indeed fail the "spirit of the game" tests the English were now themselves applying.
redbackfan
Roar Rookie
Mccullums (2 of 3 thank you very much) were after players had completed runs and were then wandering down the pitch to shake their opponents hand, not much room for doubt there, doing it twice make’s subsequent ( post retirement) remorse pretty dubious. Careys throw was immediate. If you cant see a distinction you aren’t trying.
Woody
Roar Rookie
Exactly right. I recall umpiring and seeing a keeper do the same thing, and the same result happened, I had to give it out. Perhaps I lost a mate there but the rules are there to be read, learned and abided by.
Strathy
Roar Rookie
You're not being honest with yourself if you try to suggest people weren't sure whether he was batting in or out of his crease. He literally marked the area with his feet before wandering off. The incident is NO different to McCullum's run outs. The only thing that can be said for that is that he has previously claimed to have regretted it and claimed it wasn't within the spirit of the game.
redbackfan
Roar Rookie
And the 2 of Mccullum running out 2 (2! Count them!) players ( no recall) as they ambled up the pitch to congratulate their teammate’s milestones?spare us all . And on the second and third replay you noticed Bairstow was not batting out of his crease? Not so easy from 20 meters behind.
Strathy
Roar Rookie
Pretty clear problem with the analysis here. Bairstow wasn't batting out of his crease. I think the dismissal is fine. Bairstow got complacent and was punished. But the situation is clearly different to the Labuschagne incident, because he was choosing to bat out of his crease. It's also different to the de Grandhomme one which lots are pointing at, because he started to run. It is totally comparable to a Mankad. Taking advantage of a complacent or lazy batsman.
Doctordbx
Roar Rookie
Whether you accept the decision gracefully or not has absolutely ZERO to do with the laws of cricket.
Aransan
Roar Rookie
I believe Bairstow was within his crease when Carey threw the ball, but was out of his crease when the ball hit his stumps. Taking the ball and throwing it by Carey was in a single action. It was the last ball of the over but the umpire hadn’t called over. Initially I thought it wasn’t in the spirit of the game but Carey’s single action changed my mind. The authorities have tried to code all the grey areas, for example with catching — two catches to Green, no catch for Starc. Keep your fingers under the ball! What a pity that the laws had to be changed to stop a fat cricketer from having a runner. Lyon lost out because of previous runner abuses.
Pedro
Roar Rookie
There seems little doubt Bairstow was out according to the rules. I’ll be more convinced by these arguments that the dismissal was entirely legitimate when an Australian batsmen is Mankaded without warning when a test is on the line and the Australian’s accept that decision gracefully. I played an awful lot of Australian club cricket in the 1980’s and 1990’s which was a pretty hard school and this didn’t happen once. Perhaps the game has changed from what I believe were the accepted norms. I note McCullum was guilty of several instances of similar or worse, particularly in the test against Sri Lanka in about 2007. I note he apologised some years later but that doesn’t excuse him for what he did. I wonder whether Cummins will reflect on his decision to pursue the appeal in the future.
matth
Roar Guru
Hear, hear!