‘Wouldn’t even enter my mind to do that’: Bairstow reignites Ashes stumping furore, accuses Aussies of claiming unfair catches

My original argument was that Bairstow has two standards - that argument stands. It has been proven that he has done something similar before and acknowledged in an interview after the game in 2014 that it was within the rules, so ok. You introduced the members in the pavillion as if they are some sort of cricketing gods who we should all bow down to. In reality, they are the mostly decendents of men who somehow became members a long, long time ago. They have no special cricket qualifications and their opinions on cricket and fair play mean no more than any other cricket lovers in this world. My reference to Bay 13 was as a comparison to the behaviour of some of the members in the pavillion. However, Australian and English fans are not the only poorly behaved fans in the world and abuse is directed at players from the fans of most opposing countries. You introduced the arguments of Jardine and the underarm incident. Both of these led to fairly swift rule changes as they were deemed to be exploiting defficiencies in the existing rules of cricket. There has been no discussion about changing the rules for dopey batsmen like Bairstow who think they can wander out of their crease at any time. ps I haven't finished in Primary School yet so perhaps that lesson is still to come?

You've enlarged the scope of what we were discussing and that is the respective responses of the Lord's pavillion and the infamous Bay 13. I was pointing to the differences with Bay 13 , which you initially raised . To go beyond that is quite another argument . If you can't address the issue then you have lost the argument .I'm sure that was pointed out to you even in primary school.

You forgot the word "legitimate" before "act of stumping". You seem to have a selective memory. Australians have also been subject to abuse from English crowds for a long time. I have sat in crowds at Old Trafford and listened to abuse being hurled at Australian players for no apparent reason (and it wasn't even a test match). I've also heard abuse from English supporters at Australian grounds - the WACA and the Gabba. As for playing within the "spirit of cricket", Bairstow himself, Broad and Atherton (amongst others) have all disgraced themselves in this area before. So, don't get all high and mighty. Since you have a dictionary out, look up the word hypocrite - you might learn something.

The word incensed has a lexicographical component which indicates it is a response to a cause which engendered anger . In this matter the cause was the the Australian's act of stumping . I have no doubt that the members were abusive because they were incensed . But Bay 13 were habitually abusive without good reason . Their abuse stood alone , particularly after lunch . It's not as if the Australian team had no prior record of conduct unbecoming .

Now you are just showing your bias. Members of the MCC were expelled because of their abuse towards the Australian team. Not only that, a large portion of the crowd abused the Australian team. England has shown they can be as hypocritical as anyone. This issue would not have come out again except that Johnny is trying to sell his book (one which would struggle to sell without this controversy!).

No. There is a difference . The pavilion was incensed . Bay 13 never had the capacity to be incensed . Their forte was plain abuse .

The behaviour of the members in the "pavillion at Lords" has proven that they are as feral as the mobs in Bay 13.

When the pavilion at Lords reacts as they did you know something of moment has occurred .They know their cricket and recognise and acknowledge fine performances. This clinging to the "rules are rules " and sovereign above the spirit of the game ranks with Jardine and bodyline .It was within the rules Jardine said . Greg Chappel also played within the rules when he instructed his brother to bowl underarm . Richie Benaud soon destroyed by scorn that argument . Australian teams for a very long time have brought ill repute to our country and dismay among those who loved the game when it was honourable .

Honestly, I hope not. Nothing would be more infuriating for the narrative if, on the back of a 5-0 flogging, the Aussie public treated them with nothing but grace and respect throughout. Would ruin it for everyone.

Feral as in continually verbally abusing players & threatening them . Including supposedly upper class members in the cricket ground stands? Oh, that’s right. They weren’t Australians.

That’s Starc’s prerogative, I’d have been quite comfortable if he had of taken the stumps - and I imagine a lot of other people would have been too, but that’s his call. Carey could’ve warned Bairstow, but he didn’t need to - his choice. Adam Gilchrist chose to walk - he didn’t need to, and I personally am not a walker, I think you cop enough bad ones that you take your good luck. In terms of leaving your crease - you leave when the ball is dead, and that is at the discretion of the umpire and the players - Carey clearly thought the ball was well and truly alive, as did the umpire - somehow Bairstow missed that memo.

Look of course - different histories and experiences are going to dictate the way people see the game. I think it was perfectly fine, you don’t, that’s ok we don’t have to agree. I don’t think you were doing this by the way - but it does annoy me when people that are older dismiss my opinion on cricket (or anything else) due to me being younger.

maybe i just don't hate the Poms as much as I should. there is that possibility. oh well. now I'm out

that can all be true and he can still have been at fault and Carey could have celebrated his skill or cunning or anticipation. all of those can be true, and Cummins still could have withdrawn the appeal. especially BECAUSE it's the Ashes. watching the video you see him running cock-a-hoop over to celebrate. Smith dancing like a loon. it was either personal, or desperate. a rubbish look for a test skipper I thought. it makes you wonder - well, me - if they would have done it to someone else, or at some other time. we won't know. either way, it's about the most energy Pat showed after his marvellous knock in the first test. --- i';m done now. none of us are for changing our minds. the people who posted this knew that, but 100 replies is a tasty effort. peace, out!

what is a game except a collection of rules.

You're just a young fella. By 1977, I'd finished high school and was misbehaving on and off the cricket field. I'm a traditionalist and love my test cricket but appreciate the shorter forms of the game. Bairstow was lazy or dozey. No excuses as far as I'm concerned. As for the spirit of cricket! This is a professional sport and the highest level of that sport (IMO) is the Ashes. Bairstow did not even look back to see whether Carey had taken the ball cleanly (had he not, there may have been runs available). Totally unprofessional by Bairstow and he, Stokes and the English media (and many fans) are still blaming Carey! Hats off to some of the English commentators (Hussein, Atherton and a few others) plus some of my Pommy mates who have said Bairstow was at fault.

that's way over my head, like the bouncer that they bowled at Bairstow that led to his dismissal

and of course we leave our creases constantly. just within obtuse parameters that have to be codified because… rules… Sure, but what is a game except a collection of rules? Starc's multiple warnings? No criticism, he can do that as he likes. I suspect Perera would have learnt his lesson better if he'd just been out though. And I doubt anyone would have been trying to cheat a few metres on Starc again in the tournament.

Are we into 'I am rubber you are glue' territory? I'm not really interested in that.

What level isn’t serious?