Consider this scenario.
It’s a crucial Test match – the Ashes are in the balance. One team is under the pump, due to some over aggressive stroke play, poor fielding, undisciplined bowling and dodgy selections. But they have a lot of potential and an inspirational captain.
They also have a wicketkeeper who isn’t very good behind the stumps but he’s an extremely good batter, if a little erratic. The keeper is leading the fight to save the game.
Then he’s dismissed in controversial circumstances. The match is lost. The losing captain calls the controversial decision wrong, wrong, wrong. He says that decision was the turning point in the game. He’s mocked by the other country’s media as a whinger.
Opinions flare. People bag each other according to their respective countries. It gets ugly.
It’s not Lords, 2023.
It’s Edgbaston, 1985.
And the whingeing, losing team wasn’t England, but Australia – captained by Allan Border, with Wayne Phillips as the batter.
It was the fifth test of the 1985 Ashes. Going in to the match, the series was 1-1, with two tests to go. We held the Ashes so if we got away with two draws, we’d retain them.
Not bad for a team that had been decimated by the South African rebel tours (we took third-choice pace bowlers to England). New captain Allan Border was entitled to feel a little hopeful.
Game on.
Australia put on 335 in the first innings. Not terrible – but not great. England responded with 5-595 (our bowling attack included Jeff Thomson and Simon O’Donnell, with Bob Holland turned into a stock bolwer).
Australia collapsed to 5-36 in response, Richard Ellison taking 4-1 in one spell. Game over…
Or is it? Because Greg Ritchie and Wayne Phillips combined to take the score to 5-112. This was Ritchie at his peak and Phillips was in strong batting form that summer. Maybe they could save us. Rain helped. We only had to hang on for something like 20 overs and it would be a draw.
But then… Phillips, when on 59, drove a Phil Edmonds delivery right at Allan Lamb, who turned out of the way – the ball hit Lamb’s thigh, rebounded into the air and was caught by David Gower. The umpires ruled it out!
You can see it here around 15 minutes in:
Australia lost 5-29 and England won the Test by an innings. It was Australia’s biggest Ashes defeat since Manchester 1956. Sigh. We lost the next Test by an innings, too, by the way.
Poor Allan Border.
Now, there were plenty of reasons Australia lost this game – mostly inadequate bowling, fielding, and batting. There was also poor selection (Wayne Phillips chosen as keeper over Ray Phillips, Simon O’Donnell chosen as a bowling all rounder when he had barely taken a wicket that summer, Dean Jones not even taken on the tour) and captaincy (using Bob Holland as a stock bowler, refusing to use part time bowlers more).
But for Border the explanation was simple…
Yep, it was that second innings Wayne Phillips dismissal.
“English umpires are the best in the world, but in this instance they’ve made a bit of a blue,” Border fumed.
“I can’t understand this decision, which I feel cost us the game. We didn’t deserve to get out of it but at that stage we looked like saving the game. I watched the slow-motion replay 30 times and I couldn’t tell what happened.”
“We have a game based on the benefit of the doubt going to batsmen,” added Border. “While we play under those rules I can’t understand this decision going against us.”
In response, the English press treated Border’s comments with kindness, respect and nuance… Oh, who am I kidding? They went after him like a pack of dogs, calling him a whinger and a lot worse.
David Gower, then English captain, stated, “It’s fairly simple really. The scorebook says ‘Phillips, caught Gower, bowled Edmonds.’”
Now the Edgbaston incident isn’t completely the same as what happened at Lord’s – it wasn’t a “laws say yes but what does the spirit of cricket say hmm hmm” thing, more a “did the ball touch the ground in the first place hmm hmmm” thing.
But there are enough similarities for me to bring it up.
Particularly this – I think part of the reason Border lost it was part of the reason English cricket players and fans have lost it this week: to cover their embarrassment and frustration that their team lost a match they shouldn’t have.
Australia had several opportunities to win (or at least not lose) the Ashes in 1985 but kept blowing them. Instead of dealing with that head on, it was easier to make it all about the Phillips dismissal.
England had several opportunities to win the second test at Lords (and the first test, come to think of it). But they stuffed it. Remember, both Warner and Khawaja were dropped early in their crucial innings.
There were several key collapses, caused by silly rather than aggressive batting – even after Australia lost Nathan Lyon during the game. England let Lyon get away with a 15-run last wicket partnership. England also let in an amazing amount of extras – 38 in the first innings, 36 in the second – which exceeded the Australian victory margin. There were also selection issues.
They could have picked a proper wicket keeper who can bat (Foakes) and/or a number eight who can bat (Woakes, Rashid) but they didn’t. And Bairstow was silly to wander off. Look, I get it, we all daydream. But no one else seems to do it.
Instead of talking about these things it’s become all about the stumping. It’s a lot easier for England to put it all on that rather than taking a hard look at just how aggressive their batters should be, or whether the (considerable) benefits of having a keeper who can bat like Bairstow make up for the (considerable) drawbacks of having a keeper who keeps like Bairstow.
(I haven’t got the stats to back this up – I wish I did – but it always seems when a team picks a sub-standard keeper because of their batting, the whole team’s fielding suffers.
I think this is because wicketkeeper has to be the captain of the fielders and it’s hard to take them seriously when they are constantly fumbling the ball themselves.
That certainly seemed to happen with Wayne Phillips and Matthew Wade and Jos Buttler and Bairstow. Like I say I haven’t got the stats to back them up. But shouldn’t it be discussed?)
I’m not pretending Australians are holier than thou. If this happened the other way around England would be bellowing and we would be clutching our pearls. It didn’t just happen in 1985. Remember when Dean Jones was run out in the West Indies in 1991? When teams lose, their supporters get frustrated. And sulk.
So, while, yes, English supporters are acting like a bunch of sooky kids now, Australians act like sooky kids plenty of times too, so maybe we can just be a bit more understanding. After all, the game of test match cricket is played by, and commented on by, big children.
And a side note: I think Stuart Broad is one of the most superb sledgers in the history of world cricket. It is hard to imagine any other player with such skill when it comes to one liners and showmanship.
We should glory in it while we can.
Wikipetia
Roar Rookie
of course Smith pointed it our. Rabada was lucky he didn't wear a bat. he had form, and was a slow learner.
Wikipetia
Roar Rookie
Lawson and McDermott were the first choice attack. yes we lost out in depth (esp alderman).ent shield ton in we also should have taken Hughes, he scored a decent Shield ton in mid-January and then shunted on the white ball circuit to be 12thy or get run out, and get not selected by GSC.
Cluckychook
Roar Rookie
I recall a shield game at scg when nsw captain john benaud recalled a wa batsman who was walking off. Fieldsman appeared doubtful that catch was effected. Then again john's father Richie was also an advocate of good sportsmanship. On TV after "underarm'", he said "one of the worst things I have seen on a cricket field". Wonder what Richie would think of the Lord's incident? Thoughts.
Nakinz 14
Roar Rookie
Really, so In 1987 .. when nz was playing the mighty world champs in one day cricket Australia..in melb your lovely keeper Greg dyer took a catch .. only that wasn’t a catch ..who was fielding second slip that day your captain Alan border ..he never admit it was not a catch .. or called back Andrew jones .. Australia play to win like most teams .. no team is holly .. every time in the history of cricket have cross the line ..I can remember your boy Lawson standing on the stumps not once but twice ..twice miss by the umpires.. did Lawson give self out of course not ..not the Australian way Greg Chappell refuse to walk when sneddon took amazing catch in the underarm game .. happens all the time in cricket .. I’m sure there plenty times the English done the same ..
Cugel
Roar Rookie
Appealing for the stumping when a batsman leaves his ground thinking the ball is dead is the same as appealing for handled the ball when a batsman helps out a fielder by picking up the ball and tossing it over. Also, do batters still do this?
Brainstrust
Roar Rookie
I dont see Border as whinging there given the quality of the video you cant tell what happened, the umpire would have had a clearer view. It was unluckly. Australias started off well but the problem that tour was Border overbowling his main fast bowlers to make up for their only being 2 good ones, he worked them into the ground it was his fault, and if they drew here it would have made no difference Having a good batter as a keeper is a lot more sensible when you have totally stuffed your only good bowlers and it would have gotten them a draw. If this is your example of Australian whinging then where you have been for the last 30+ years. Have you been on a desert island since 1985 and only gotten off? The most disgraceful case of whinging and hysterical bleating I have seen in cricket is the Rabada shoulder brush. This was the full cock and bull dance production starting with Steve Smith pointing it out to the umpire backed by the manager at press conferences and then supported by the Australian cricket media. The same people who are calling the Pom whiners seem to be those who were also whinging about Rabada endlessly. The Australian sporting media is the closest thing we have to North Korean propaganda in such cases.
The Barry
Roar Guru
Good chat mate… that’s the best and most articulate explanation from “the other side of the fence” that I’ve read I still don’t agree but respect your view Either way the response has been way out of proportion to the act itself…
Nathan Absalom
Roar Guru
Appreciate the reply, and should put it out there that I think it is ambiguous as to whether the ball is alive or dead. Looked at the footage and the umps didn't confer, they looked at each other dumbfounded so sen it upstairs to see what happened. It's day 5, they can't concentrate all the time, who can blame them? The ball is dead prior to over being called, so it's irrelevant and as that happens every 6 balls, shouldn't be part of the decision making process. Yeah, going for the cap and not concentrating (and square leg moving position) doesn't mean the ball is dead. But then again, if the ball is alive why are the umps not concentrating on the play? If I'm the ump I'd have to call it dead if I'm acting as if it were dead, but other people will have different views although have seen umpires rule a ball dead in similar situations in my playing days. Am also far more inclined toward the batsman that looked at me than the fielder who have planned this but done it when I'm looking away, and not yelled out so they don't let the batsman in on it! As skip am definitely calling them back, that he marked his guard before walking off is a bit much if you ask me. You only need one or two blokes not to like it and it can break the team apart. The body language of the Aussies afterwards said it all and this is a team that often struggles to be more than the sum of its parts. Don't get me wrong, I see the other side and I don't think I'm going to change anyone's mind, but I just see it a bit differently, that's all.
The Barry
Roar Guru
The two onfield umpires conferred. I assume if the standing umpire had called over, it ends there and then I appreciate that Bairstow saw the umpire grab the cap - but that’s also a mistake. That’s not the indicator the ball is dead or over has been called Labuschagne almost got caught out. He stepped out of his crease after playing and missing. The difference being that he turned and watched the ball and easily re-made his ground when he saw Bairstow having a shy. If Bairstow does that, this isn’t an issue
Adam
Roar Guru
We should organise ourselves as well as the British. No wonder they were able to conquer the globe.
Nathan Absalom
Roar Guru
I see where you're coming from but have a different view. When introducing reviews the process needs careful thought. Here, the umpire responsible for calling the ball dead is the main ump, but the square leg umpire is responsible for the run out decision and referral. For the review process to comply with the laws of the game, the main umpire must be asked if the ball is dead as it solely their decision. The main umpire should have been consulted and made the decision, but he didn't. This can easily be changed by a better process. Any square leg referral should be followed by the third umpire asking the main ump "Can you please confirm the ball is alive". From Bairstow's point of view, he felt that the umpire gave him a cue that the ball was dead by going for the cap and not paying attention. That's not entirely unreasonable, and the main umpire should adjudicate this, not square leg or the third umpire, and perhaps then the players in the spirit of the game. So, I'm not quite as harsh on the Australians as I was a few days ago. I think there is a problem of process and the ICC needs to come out and clarify the process (should have done so when this issue occurred in 2009), make the game better and take the heat out of these situations. Funny thing is, without the video neither ump would have seen it, rules it not out and if questioned, simply said the ball is dead because I said so, and they'd be right
JohnB
Roar Rookie
Ponting was run out by Pratt wasn't he? Constantly on the field while the pace bowlers took turns to rest (and clean the murray mints off their fingers!). Incidentally, Dean Jones v WI got mentioned. That is possibly the one where there is most clearly a right to complain, given it resulted from complete ignorance of the law by the umpire. Admittedly, someone on the Australian side should have been able to explain to the umpire why they were wrong and get the correct decision made. Given Lamb(?) was completely off the ground when Phillips' shot hit him, hard to see that it wasn't a fair catch to Gower. It's not like it may or may not have Lamb's foot while that foot was on the ground.
The Barry
Roar Guru
…also I’d say that Ricky definitely threw his toys out of the cot, but it was nothing compared to what we’re seeing here
The Barry
Roar Guru
For sure… in this high tech day and age, applying this nebulous spirit of cricket to the application of the rules is way out of date… I’ve detailed below why I think so… if you care… :stoked:
The Barry
Roar Guru
Good point again mate Ok, so from my perspective and eliminating who’s done what… In an era of super slow mo replays, multiple cameras, snicko, hot spot, DRS, etc the ‘spirit of cricket’ (SOC) doesn’t mean what it used to and is almost redundant when applied to the rules As an example, for most of cricket history, if a fielder claimed a catch that was enough for a batsman to walk. But how long since that’s been the expectation? Everyone waits for the umpires decision. It’s an example of SOC changing over the years Strip everything back and that’s all Australia has done. They thought they’d taken a wicket, appealed and let the umpire adjudicate Bairstow made a mistake and lost his wicket as a result… so does every batsman who gets dismissed Not bouncing tail enders was SOC for 100 years. Not now Challenging an umpires decision would have been a huge breach of SOC, now it’s literally written into the rules I don’t know how we can reasonably apply a SOC lens to one area of the game, but not others? SOC should be woven into the rules of the game, but not be an extra layer on top. It’s impossible to apply and we end up in the situation we are now I’m not advocating a free for all. Things like taking sandpaper to a ball or saying “f..k off you f..king pr..k” to an opponent are the things SOC should be addressing now, not the correct application of the laws of the game
matth
Roar Guru
I agree that we should consider how the Australian team wants to play, but stumping a player who is not paying attention to his crease to me is absolutely within acceptable limits. Now, if Bairstow had pulled a hammy and couldn't get back to his crease, or if an Australian fielder had accidentally knocked him over, that would suggest the Australian team should have withdrawn their appeal, but Bairstow just being "dozey (trademark pending)" is more than fine by me.
matth
Roar Guru
To be fair he only really had to go back to 2005 when Ricky Ponting threw his toys out of the cot after being caught by a specialist substitute fielder. definitely a grey area in the rules and very definitely outside the "spirit" as defined by Ricky. Basically whichever team loses cries foul. consider the ratio of 20 to 1. that is the average bad calls a ref makes in the NRL when our team loses compared to when our team wins :stoked:
Nathan Absalom
Roar Guru
Oh, it's not any one individual and I'm as guilty as anyone when I get into a bit of a testy argument. It's also actually quite difficult to think of many situations where the Poms have been the ones with the sporting gesture! Your last sentence is very good. But at some point there needs to be room for a debate about how cricket ought to be played by Australians that really has nothing to do with the English players and their conduct. I mean, I remember hearing AB recalling the player on the radio (SCG matches weren't on the telly back then) and both radio commentators and my parents explaining why sportsmanship is more important than winning. Others mightn't feel those experiences are meaningful, but I do. It's also that the Roar has often provided good counterpoints to media idiocy in the past but I feel has really run down the rabbit hole for the last few days.
astro
Roar Rookie
"Now the Edgbaston incident isn’t completely the same as what happened at Lord’s"...true, its nothing like what happened at Lords! If the game was being played in Australia, and the crowd turned on the England team and abused as they left the ground, and the Australian coach, captain and players accused them of not playing in the correct spirit of the game and saying they'd have done it differently, even though there is a mountain of evidence that suggests they wouldn't have, then maybe, it would be similar... I understand the point your making, but to me, what's happening in and around this second test, is not just a case of 'everyone complains when they lose'. Its much more than that. The Aussies were verbally abused with some being physically contacted, as they went into the change room. All because they played within the laws of the game, and caught Bairstow not paying attention. And the England captain and coach, have done little to de-escalate the situation since...if anything, they've done the opposite.
The Barry
Roar Guru
Last paragraph is a good point and I’m as guilty as anyone My motivation though is the hypocrisy of calling a team c.heats for not upholding the spirit of cricket, when they’ve got a list of their own as long as their arm. Stuart Broad - for example - has no legs to stand on. Carried on like a pork chop on the field and has done so since in the media I’d accept the same in reverse if Warner was getting on his high horse about England not upholding the spirit of cricket Players walking, calling an opponent back or withdrawing an appeal, etc should be celebrated but not expected