The cricket thread

scrumhalf · July 2023

We didn't lose the game before YJB was out. Our batting performance in the first innings, when we decided to play like idiots, was far more to blame. I would far rather have a series level at 1-1 than see an hour of pointless chucking the bat.

I'm confused by the "spirit of cricket" thing. There are lawmakers who can set out what should and should not be done. Saying that something is within the laws of the game but contrary to the spirit of the game adds open-ended confusion.

If a mankad us contrary to "the spirit" then all national bodies could issue a joint declaration asking for it to be outlawed. They haven't.

crunchman · July 2023

scrumhalf said:

We didn't lose the game before YJB was out. Our batting performance in the first innings, when we decided to play like idiots, was far more to blame. I would far rather have a series level at 1-1 than see an hour of pointless chucking the bat.

I'm confused by the "spirit of cricket" thing. There are lawmakers who can set out what should and should not be done. Saying that something is within the laws of the game but contrary to the spirit of the game adds open-ended confusion.

If a mankad us contrary to "the spirit" then all national bodies could issue a joint declaration asking for it to be outlawed. They haven't.

The "Mankad" has to be a legitimate option as otherwise batsman would be backing up 5 metres every ball. I think Jos Buttler has form for that, and has rightly been Mankaded.

This is different though, because the ball is essentially dead once it is in the keepers hands. Even there though, the law has to allow the keeper to run someone out because they could start off 5 metres down the pitch to run before turning back.

In this case, Bairstow marked himself back in his crease afterwards, and wasn't running. It's technically out, but for someone to be out like this isn't the intent of the law. I view this as very bad conduct by the Aussies, but as various Aussies have pointed out, MacCullum hasn't really got a leg to stand on given his history.

We had one go our way with the non-catch off of Duckett the previous day. Starc had that ball under control right through, and that should have been given out.

As @scrumhalf pointed out, we didn't lose the game because of this decision. The damage was done by our poor bowling on day one, our brainless batting on the afternoon of day 2, and the dropped catches in the Aussie second innings.

Had we got a bit closer, our brainless bowling at Lyon in the Aussie second innings would have been questioned. He wasn't able to get a stride in to play forwards defensively, or drive the ball. We should have been pitching the ball up and aiming at the stumps. We gave the Aussies unnecessary runs there.

Overall, England made a lot of very poor decisions in that game that all contributed to losing it.

guitars4you · July 2023

I would need to see that Bairstow dismissal again and from a wide lens camera that covers a lot of the ground - But I bet you as JB walked, thinking the ball is dead and expecting to hear the umpire say over, that a number of Aussies had already started to move into their relevant position for the next over again - Also assuming the ball is now 'dead' - Many cricketers, at all levels have done so, and will do say again, start to walk assuming the keeper now has the ball and it is now dead - Move on next over etc - Whichever way you look at it, it was a cheap shot by their keeper, then endorsed by Cummins and the rest of the team

So yes, by the letter of the law JB was out - But it is alley cat ethics as far as I'm concerned

I'm looking forward to the 1st day at Headingley - I'm next to the Western Terrace so expect to hear some fine chosen northern banter towards the Aussies

UnclePsychosis · July 2023

scrumhalf said:

We didn't lose the game before YJB was out. Our batting performance in the first innings, when we decided to play like idiots, was far more to blame. I would far rather have a series level at 1-1 than see an hour of pointless chucking the bat.

I'm confused by the "spirit of cricket" thing. There are lawmakers who can set out what should and should not be done. Saying that something is within the laws of the game but contrary to the spirit of the game adds open-ended confusion.

If a mankad us contrary to "the spirit" then all national bodies could issue a joint declaration asking for it to be outlawed. They haven't.

Careful, I got accused of trolling for saying that yesterday.

earwighoney · July 2023

guitars4you said:

I'm looking forward to the 1st day at Headingley - I'm next to the Western Terrace so expect to hear some fine chosen northern banter towards the Aussies

I've got a feeling this will end badly...

Tannin · July 2023

Nope. It will end well. 3-0 is always nice. Looking forward to it!

PearlsPreserve · July 2023

crunchman said:

We had one go our way with the non-catch off of Duckett the previous day. Starc had that ball under control right through, and that should have been given out.

But that really isn't the case. The law requires the ball, and player, to be in control. He was still sliding, uncontrollably, so he wasn't in control. If he was that much in control of himself, why did he put the ball down on the ground? He should have twisted so that there was no chance of the balling touching the ground. This, of course, would have risked him losing control of the ball, which then would further bolster the point that he wasn't in control of his body. The decision was 100% correct.

And the difference here is that the batsman walked, and was called back by the umpires who reviewed the footage and declared it not out. England had no choice in the matter. Australia chose to take advantage of a loophole in the rules to get a dismissal. Almost everyoneon the pitch, and in the ground, beleived the ball was dead because, in almost every other situation that is liek that one it is. Yes, Bairstow was careless but, like with a Mankad, Australia should have warned him that they would do what they did. At that point it's entirely his fault.

All of this is irrelevant, though. I am sure Bairstow's dismissal lit the fire for Stokes. Without it I don't see that Stokes would have done what he did. As such, the outcome probably would have been the same. Losing 4 stupid wickets in the first innings, and being 40/4 in the second innings are what cost us this test.

PearlsPreserve · July 2023

scrumhalf said:

We didn't lose the game before YJB was out. Our batting performance in the first innings, when we decided to play like idiots, was far more to blame. I would far rather have a series level at 1-1 than see an hour of pointless chucking the bat.

I'm confused by the "spirit of cricket" thing. There are lawmakers who can set out what should and should not be done. Saying that something is within the laws of the game but contrary to the spirit of the game adds open-ended confusion.

If a mankad us contrary to "the spirit" then all national bodies could issue a joint declaration asking for it to be outlawed. They haven't.

The spirit of the rules is there to deal with situations where there are vagueries or grey areas in the rules that are not easily fixed. The Bairstow wicket is a prime example, I cannot think of a way to re-write the rule in question to cover the situation without having serious unintended consequences elsewhere. As such, it is up to the spirit of the rules to then govern these grey areas. It's not perfect, but it works 99% of the time.

UnclePsychosis · July 2023

PearlsPreserve said:

scrumhalf said:

We didn't lose the game before YJB was out. Our batting performance in the first innings, when we decided to play like idiots, was far more to blame. I would far rather have a series level at 1-1 than see an hour of pointless chucking the bat.

I'm confused by the "spirit of cricket" thing. There are lawmakers who can set out what should and should not be done. Saying that something is within the laws of the game but contrary to the spirit of the game adds open-ended confusion.

If a mankad us contrary to "the spirit" then all national bodies could issue a joint declaration asking for it to be outlawed. They haven't.

The spirit of the rules is there to deal with situations where there are vagueries or grey areas in the rules that are not easily fixed. The Bairstow wicket is a prime example, I cannot think of a way to re-write the rule in question to cover the situation without having serious unintended consequences elsewhere. As such, it is up to the spirit of the rules to then govern these grey areas. It's not perfect, but it works 99% of the time.

The rule doesn't need rewritten. Its fine as is.

Bairstow (or any other batter) just needs to not leave the crease until the ball is 100% dead.

UnclePsychosis · July 2023

It was actually fascinating seeing the narrative on this change yesterday.

When it happened, the live commentary was all about how sloppy it was of Bairstow to get out like that.

It was only afterwards, presumably as England realised that they'd blown it, that it became all about the Aussies. Australia, of course, dont help themselves by being a dislikable bunch of twats at the best of times but I can't help but think that England's anger at their own carelessness, combined with a general dislike of said Aussie twats, have joined forces to misplace the anger here.

Whilst we're on the topic - how do the spirit of cricket types feel about both teams serving up meals of what seemed like 98% bouncers? I'm surprised that hasn't had more comment tbh.

munckee · July 2023

UnclePsychosis said:

It was actually fascinating seeing the narrative on this change yesterday.

When it happened, the live commentary was all about how sloppy it was of Bairstow to get out like that.

It was only afterwards, presumably as England realised that they'd blown it, that it became all about the Aussies. Australia, of course, dont help themselves by being a dislikable bunch of twats at the best of times but I can't help but think that England's anger at their own carelessness, combined with a general dislike of said Aussie twats, have joined forces to misplace the anger here.

Whilst we're on the topic - how do the spirit of cricket types feel about both teams serving up meals of what seemed like 98% bouncers? I'm surprised that hasn't had more comment tbh.

I think both were concurrently true. I thought bairstow was a total wassock straight away and thought Australia were very poor.

Ultimately you are right it was bairstows responsibility to make sure he stayed in his crease, that doesn’t excuse the aussies though. Although I am biased I don’t see how it’s karma for the catch the day before which was nothing to do with our behaviour and was ultimately the right decision.

I thought both teams were too aggressive with the bowling.

crunchman · July 2023

Part of the problem with the short pitched bowling is that all the modern pyjama cricket has bred a generation of batsmen who haven't got a clue how to play short pitched bowling.

In one day cricket, bouncers are limited, and the articificial fielding restrictions mean that short pitched bowling is telegraphed so the batsman knows what is coming. If fine leg and third man are back, you can't have long off and long on, so bowlers don't risk the surprise pitched up ball with the batsman on the back foot.

In T20 you are always going to attack the short ball. On sluggish pitches in the IPL, you will normally get away with it. Also, if you hook uppishly in T20 , there won't be 3 fielders waiting for it because of the fielding restrictions. It's much lower risk than it was when the English batsmen had their collective brain failure on day 2. They only way they know how to play short pitched bowling is to attack it. When 3 fielders are back for it, they are in trouble.

You wouldn't see the likes of Gooch or Lamb getting in trouble like this, and the bowlers wouldn't keep going with that method of attack.

PearlsPreserve · July 2023

UnclePsychosis said:

PearlsPreserve said:

scrumhalf said:

We didn't lose the game before YJB was out. Our batting performance in the first innings, when we decided to play like idiots, was far more to blame. I would far rather have a series level at 1-1 than see an hour of pointless chucking the bat.

I'm confused by the "spirit of cricket" thing. There are lawmakers who can set out what should and should not be done. Saying that something is within the laws of the game but contrary to the spirit of the game adds open-ended confusion.

If a mankad us contrary to "the spirit" then all national bodies could issue a joint declaration asking for it to be outlawed. They haven't.

The spirit of the rules is there to deal with situations where there are vagueries or grey areas in the rules that are not easily fixed. The Bairstow wicket is a prime example, I cannot think of a way to re-write the rule in question to cover the situation without having serious unintended consequences elsewhere. As such, it is up to the spirit of the rules to then govern these grey areas. It's not perfect, but it works 99% of the time.

The rule doesn't need rewritten. Its fine as is.

Bairstow (or any other batter) just needs to not leave the crease until the ball is 100% dead.

My point here is that the way that the rule has been used will result in the Stuart Broad approach of asking the umpire, literally every ball, if it's dead or not. That's not the point of the rule. The rule is there to stop batsmen taking the piss by running down the wicket and not being able to be stumped. So the issue is that, until now, it was always taken as read when the ball was dead, the umpire didn't need to declare the ball dead, each and every ball. On a strict interpretation of the rule, that is now what needs to happen.

guitars4you · July 2023

I now assume you can be stumped without the ball in the keepers hand - Maybe it's because we see most/all stumpings, when the keeper is behind the stumps, so they just whip the bails off with ball/glove at the same time

I've seen keepers make a genuine run out, when the batsman are actually running between the wicket and the keeper will throw the ball at the stumps - But that is a run out

My original understanding was the ball had to be in the keepers hand to make a stumping - But now assume I'm wrong

Gassage · July 2023

So The Times asked me to write a piece on this.

So I have.

The Spirit of Cricket was enshrined in the laws of the game by the Marylebone Cricket Club in 2000 following an initiative by Ted Dexter and Lord Cowdrey. The preamble to the laws states that any action seen to abuse the Spirit of Cricket “causes injury to the game itself”.
In 2014, I was asked by the MCC Players & Fixtures Chairman to draft a note outlining the behaviour of Playing Members- those that are gifted enough as cricketers alone to be fast tracked into membership due to their contribution to the sport on the field of play.
To frame Spirit of Cricket is hard. It’s not about objectives, it’s not about measuring individual decisions, it’s about how you as a player or spectator honour subjectively the traditions and the intrinsic sportsmanship of the game- a philosophy over a strict doctrine- so in order to capture that I kept it short and sweet:
“How does my behaviour in other cricket matches affect my M.C.C membership?
Cricket is a competitive sport and it is inevitable that, in the heat of battle, relationships between competing sides can become strained.
However, as an M.C.C Member you should always be aware of your wider responsibilities to the sport and understand where the boundaries of sportsmanship lie. Please refer to Spirit of Cricket.
Those are the words I wrote. That’s it, three sentences. I didn’t comment on specifics and nor does SoC itself. I merely asked players to consider what they themselves felt was appropriate in any given context.
Spirit of Cricket is like modern English- it’s the language of the game, one that should be spoken universally by anyone who picks up a bat or a ball and crosses the white line of hope, triumph and despair. But like all language it isn’t static; it moves and forms with the influence of its users and with its relative society itself. To define SoC in absolute terms is impossible- it’s the playing field cricketers perform within and the dictate by which you will be judged and, importantly by which you’ll judge yourself.
Context is all; at the Lords test we saw a perfect storm- the Australian emotion of the (correct) Starc catch ruling fuels anger. Jonny Bairstow swans in and walks up and down the crease as if he owns it to reclaim emotional dominance - which irks Alex Carey.
Carey bites, fuelled by the actions of Bairstow, and desperate to prove a point to re-establish Aussie emotional dominance over proceedings and throws the stumps down. All of this takes places within the highest pressure environment test cricket knows- a Lords Ashes test.
Was any of that against the Laws? No. Was it against the Spirit of Cricket? Absolutely not- SoC clearly says you respect the Laws, Umpires and opposition. Those are indisputable facts. The players set their own agenda- a feisty and challenging one as close to the line as you will get, but one of their choosing.
However, what happened thereafter in the Long Room was reprehensible.
To boo and to sledge teams and players from the Stands is one thing- it’s theatre, it enhances the atmosphere, it’s visceral and it’s very much part of the game.
What isn’t part of the game is taking that behaviour behind closed doors and into a situation where face to face confrontation against international athletes within a privileged space is used to for one’s own emotional benefit by proxy.
The delicious irony is Lords is the Home of Cricket and the Long Room is its lounge. It should welcome all cricketers, with warmth and understanding, with the Spirit of Cricket overlooking events. By that measure, the MCC members who were at fault let both themselves and the game down.
Any cricket club with 22,000 constituents will always have a fluid and varied mix of members, and it is impossible to categorise those people with one stroke of a broad brush.
Strength and resilience thrive in a vibrant and diverse environment and MCC has made incredible strides towards levelling up some of the historic criticism of the make up at Lords. Under Guy Lavender’s charismatic stewardship, protected class membership has increased significantly in the 22 years I have been a member, a welcome trend.
Yesterday was both an affront and a setback to MCC’s vision and most importantly, the Spirit of Cricket itself.

Byline: James While is Snr Rugby Correspondent for Planet Rugby and a regular contributor to The Cricketer. As an MCC Playing Member, he has represented the Club almost 200 times in eight different countries of the world.

S56035 · July 2023

As a non-expert can someone explain where the controversy in the actual dismissal is please? I don't think I've seen it yet.

From what I understand Carey had seen that Bairstow was leaving the crease a lot so just took a punt that he would do it on that occasion as well (you can see this as he throws the ball before Bairstow moves) and by luck the Over hadn't been called yet so "out". Which bit am I missing?

In "The Spirt" shouldn't Broad have walked here?

UnclePsychosis · July 2023

You're not missing anything. The only "controversy" is about whether Bairstow is able to just decide for himself that the ball is dead. Many England fans will tell you no. Many people who aren't England fans will tell you Bairstow was sloppy and only has himself to blame.

And yes, Broad should have walked.

But as we've seen - every single team in international cricket will violate "the spirit of the game" when it suits and they all whine like little babies when someone does it to them. Its actually quite enjoyable seeing professionals moan because they don't understand the rules of their own sport.

Open_G · July 2023

I suppose the “spirit of cricket” thing falls within the idea that this dismissal has zero to do with bowler/fielder vs batter. It’s a dismissal based on a technical interpretation of a “dead” ball. I suppose you could argue that there is skill involved in throwing the ball from distance wearing keeping gloves although it would still have been out of Carey had sauntered up to the stumps while JB was wandering to chat with BS at what he considered the end of the over.

vasselmeyer · July 2023

If we had done that to the Aussies, people would be praising them as "taking it to the opposition" and laughing at them if they tried to claim it was against the spirit of the game. Bairstow was a muppet and it was his own fault entirely.

In all cricket, it's the ump's call. If the ump says walk, you walk. If you get a let off, stay. The ump said Broad wasn't out. Any Aussie batman would have stayed as well.

And that Starc catch was also the correct decision...

Hattigol · July 2023

UnclePsychosis said:

You're not missing anything. The only "controversy" is about whether Bairstow is able to just decide for himself that the ball is dead. Many England fans will tell you no. Many people who aren't England fans will tell you Bairstow was sloppy and only has himself to blame.

And yes, Broad should have walked.

But as we've seen - every single team in international cricket will violate "the spirit of the game" when it suits and they all whine like little babies when someone does it to them. Its actually quite enjoyable seeing professionals moan because they don't understand the rules of their own sport.

I love how you have now spent two days on this thread continually crying about how the English are crying.

UnclePsychosis · July 2023

Hattigol said:

UnclePsychosis said:

You're not missing anything. The only "controversy" is about whether Bairstow is able to just decide for himself that the ball is dead. Many England fans will tell you no. Many people who aren't England fans will tell you Bairstow was sloppy and only has himself to blame.

And yes, Broad should have walked.

But as we've seen - every single team in international cricket will violate "the spirit of the game" when it suits and they all whine like little babies when someone does it to them. Its actually quite enjoyable seeing professionals moan because they don't understand the rules of their own sport.

I love how you have now spent two days on this thread continually crying about how the English are crying.

Lol, cry even more :-D

earwighoney · July 2023

UnclePsychosis said:

You're not missing anything. The only "controversy" is about whether Bairstow is able to just decide for himself that the ball is dead. Many England fans will tell you no. Many people who aren't England fans will tell you Bairstow was sloppy and only has himself to blame.

I think something is being a little missed right now. Amongst all the controversy about the dismissal and the furore in the Long Room, the Stokes innings was one of the most exhilarating and destructive displays of batting I've ever seen. It was gloriously good fun to watch. If ever it was apparent Stokes is a one in a generation player. Even though his team lost, batting performances like his, are seldom seen.

FTR, I'm not really inclined to support any nation (I prefer to follow exceptional players rather than teams) but I couldn't quite believe the sheer drama of the day's cricket. It was a great day for the neutral fan of the sport if ever there was one!

There was much to see in the picture, than just Bairstow's dismissal. I myself am eagerly awaiting the next instalment of this sporting soap opera!

S56035 · July 2023

Open_G said:

I suppose the “spirit of cricket” thing falls within the idea that this dismissal has zero to do with bowler/fielder vs batter. It’s a dismissal based on a technical interpretation of a “dead” ball. I suppose you could argue that there is skill involved in throwing the ball from distance wearing keeping gloves although it would still have been out of Carey had sauntered up to the stumps while JB was wandering to chat with BS at what he considered the end of the over.

Isn't the skill in noticing that Bairstow kept leaving the crease early? I'm assuming that the Umpire hadn't actually called the over and that they do that every time?

S56035 · July 2023

UnclePsychosis said:

You're not missing anything. The only "controversy" is about whether Bairstow is able to just decide for himself that the ball is dead. Many England fans will tell you no. Many people who aren't England fans will tell you Bairstow was sloppy and only has himself to blame.

And yes, Broad should have walked.

But as we've seen - every single team in international cricket will violate "the spirit of the game" when it suits and they all whine like little babies when someone does it to them. Its actually quite enjoyable seeing professionals moan because they don't understand the rules of their own sport.

This could have been so much more helpful without the anti-english fan additions.

S56035 · July 2023

earwighoney said:

UnclePsychosis said:

You're not missing anything. The only "controversy" is about whether Bairstow is able to just decide for himself that the ball is dead. Many England fans will tell you no. Many people who aren't England fans will tell you Bairstow was sloppy and only has himself to blame.

I think something is being a little missed right now. Amongst all the controversy about the dismissal and the furore in the Long Room, the Stokes innings was one of the most exhilarating and destructive displays of batting I've ever seen. It was gloriously good fun to watch. If ever it was apparent Stokes is a one in a generation player. Even though his team lost, batting performances like his, are seldom seen.

FTR, I'm not really inclined to support any nation (I prefer to follow exceptional players rather than teams) but I couldn't quite believe the sheer drama of the day's cricket. It was a great day for the neutral fan of the sport if ever there was one!

There was much to see in the picture, than just Bairstow's dismissal. I myself am eagerly awaiting the next instalment of this sporting soap opera!

Agreed. As a very infrequent watcher that was an amazing show from him and the whole last two days will make me watch the next one from the start.

The Long Room stuff was hilarious to watch from the point of view of laughing at old men in bad suits getting exceptionally wound up.

axisus · July 2023

The bottom line for me - it's a shame that a great test match is marred by controversy.

Win or lose, England have shaken up test cricket and it's all the better for it, let's hope that other nations join the fun.

UnclePsychosis · July 2023

Gassage said:

So The Times asked me to write a piece on this.

So I have.

The Spirit of Cricket was enshrined in the laws of the game by the Marylebone Cricket Club in 2000 following an initiative by Ted Dexter and Lord Cowdrey. The preamble to the laws states that any action seen to abuse the Spirit of Cricket “causes injury to the game itself”.
In 2014, I was asked by the MCC Players & Fixtures Chairman to draft a note outlining the behaviour of Playing Members- those that are gifted enough as cricketers alone to be fast tracked into membership due to their contribution to the sport on the field of play.
To frame Spirit of Cricket is hard. It’s not about objectives, it’s not about measuring individual decisions, it’s about how you as a player or spectator honour subjectively the traditions and the intrinsic sportsmanship of the game- a philosophy over a strict doctrine- so in order to capture that I kept it short and sweet:
“How does my behaviour in other cricket matches affect my M.C.C membership?
Cricket is a competitive sport and it is inevitable that, in the heat of battle, relationships between competing sides can become strained.
However, as an M.C.C Member you should always be aware of your wider responsibilities to the sport and understand where the boundaries of sportsmanship lie. Please refer to Spirit of Cricket.
Those are the words I wrote. That’s it, three sentences. I didn’t comment on specifics and nor does SoC itself. I merely asked players to consider what they themselves felt was appropriate in any given context.
Spirit of Cricket is like modern English- it’s the language of the game, one that should be spoken universally by anyone who picks up a bat or a ball and crosses the white line of hope, triumph and despair. But like all language it isn’t static; it moves and forms with the influence of its users and with its relative society itself. To define SoC in absolute terms is impossible- it’s the playing field cricketers perform within and the dictate by which you will be judged and, importantly by which you’ll judge yourself.
Context is all; at the Lords test we saw a perfect storm- the Australian emotion of the (correct) Starc catch ruling fuels anger. Jonny Bairstow swans in and walks up and down the crease as if he owns it to reclaim emotional dominance - which irks Alex Carey.
Carey bites, fuelled by the actions of Bairstow, and desperate to prove a point to re-establish Aussie emotional dominance over proceedings and throws the stumps down. All of this takes places within the highest pressure environment test cricket knows- a Lords Ashes test.
Was any of that against the Laws? No. Was it against the Spirit of Cricket? Absolutely not- SoC clearly says you respect the Laws, Umpires and opposition. Those are indisputable facts. The players set their own agenda- a feisty and challenging one as close to the line as you will get, but one of their choosing.
However, what happened thereafter in the Long Room was reprehensible.
To boo and to sledge teams and players from the Stands is one thing- it’s theatre, it enhances the atmosphere, it’s visceral and it’s very much part of the game.
What isn’t part of the game is taking that behaviour behind closed doors and into a situation where face to face confrontation against international athletes within a privileged space is used to for one’s own emotional benefit by proxy.
The delicious irony is Lords is the Home of Cricket and the Long Room is its lounge. It should welcome all cricketers, with warmth and understanding, with the Spirit of Cricket overlooking events. By that measure, the MCC members who were at fault let both themselves and the game down.
Any cricket club with 22,000 constituents will always have a fluid and varied mix of members, and it is impossible to categorise those people with one stroke of a broad brush.
Strength and resilience thrive in a vibrant and diverse environment and MCC has made incredible strides towards levelling up some of the historic criticism of the make up at Lords. Under Guy Lavender’s charismatic stewardship, protected class membership has increased significantly in the 22 years I have been a member, a welcome trend.
Yesterday was both an affront and a setback to MCC’s vision and most importantly, the Spirit of Cricket itself.

Byline: James While is Snr Rugby Correspondent for Planet Rugby and a regular contributor to The Cricketer. As an MCC Playing Member, he has represented the Club almost 200 times in eight different countries of the world.

Great writing, James

Stuckfast · July 2023

The frustrating thing for me was that England reached a point where they needed less than 80 to win, with four wickets in hand, and no close fielders for Stokes. When they started hiding the ball outside off stump, he was at no risk of getting out unless he tried to hit sixes. Could he not have done it in ones and twos from there?

Gassage · July 2023

UnclePsychosis said:

Gassage said:

So The Times asked me to write a piece on this.

So I have.

The Spirit of Cricket was enshrined in the laws of the game by the Marylebone Cricket Club in 2000 following an initiative by Ted Dexter and Lord Cowdrey. The preamble to the laws states that any action seen to abuse the Spirit of Cricket “causes injury to the game itself”.
In 2014, I was asked by the MCC Players & Fixtures Chairman to draft a note outlining the behaviour of Playing Members- those that are gifted enough as cricketers alone to be fast tracked into membership due to their contribution to the sport on the field of play.
To frame Spirit of Cricket is hard. It’s not about objectives, it’s not about measuring individual decisions, it’s about how you as a player or spectator honour subjectively the traditions and the intrinsic sportsmanship of the game- a philosophy over a strict doctrine- so in order to capture that I kept it short and sweet:
“How does my behaviour in other cricket matches affect my M.C.C membership?
Cricket is a competitive sport and it is inevitable that, in the heat of battle, relationships between competing sides can become strained.
However, as an M.C.C Member you should always be aware of your wider responsibilities to the sport and understand where the boundaries of sportsmanship lie. Please refer to Spirit of Cricket.
Those are the words I wrote. That’s it, three sentences. I didn’t comment on specifics and nor does SoC itself. I merely asked players to consider what they themselves felt was appropriate in any given context.
Spirit of Cricket is like modern English- it’s the language of the game, one that should be spoken universally by anyone who picks up a bat or a ball and crosses the white line of hope, triumph and despair. But like all language it isn’t static; it moves and forms with the influence of its users and with its relative society itself. To define SoC in absolute terms is impossible- it’s the playing field cricketers perform within and the dictate by which you will be judged and, importantly by which you’ll judge yourself.
Context is all; at the Lords test we saw a perfect storm- the Australian emotion of the (correct) Starc catch ruling fuels anger. Jonny Bairstow swans in and walks up and down the crease as if he owns it to reclaim emotional dominance - which irks Alex Carey.
Carey bites, fuelled by the actions of Bairstow, and desperate to prove a point to re-establish Aussie emotional dominance over proceedings and throws the stumps down. All of this takes places within the highest pressure environment test cricket knows- a Lords Ashes test.
Was any of that against the Laws? No. Was it against the Spirit of Cricket? Absolutely not- SoC clearly says you respect the Laws, Umpires and opposition. Those are indisputable facts. The players set their own agenda- a feisty and challenging one as close to the line as you will get, but one of their choosing.
However, what happened thereafter in the Long Room was reprehensible.
To boo and to sledge teams and players from the Stands is one thing- it’s theatre, it enhances the atmosphere, it’s visceral and it’s very much part of the game.
What isn’t part of the game is taking that behaviour behind closed doors and into a situation where face to face confrontation against international athletes within a privileged space is used to for one’s own emotional benefit by proxy.
The delicious irony is Lords is the Home of Cricket and the Long Room is its lounge. It should welcome all cricketers, with warmth and understanding, with the Spirit of Cricket overlooking events. By that measure, the MCC members who were at fault let both themselves and the game down.
Any cricket club with 22,000 constituents will always have a fluid and varied mix of members, and it is impossible to categorise those people with one stroke of a broad brush.
Strength and resilience thrive in a vibrant and diverse environment and MCC has made incredible strides towards levelling up some of the historic criticism of the make up at Lords. Under Guy Lavender’s charismatic stewardship, protected class membership has increased significantly in the 22 years I have been a member, a welcome trend.
Yesterday was both an affront and a setback to MCC’s vision and most importantly, the Spirit of Cricket itself.

Byline: James While is Snr Rugby Correspondent for Planet Rugby and a regular contributor to The Cricketer. As an MCC Playing Member, he has represented the Club almost 200 times in eight different countries of the world.

Great writing, James

Thank you.

I am now officially a Thunderer !

(Times nickname in journo circles!)

guitars4you · July 2023

Sunak say's it is just not cricket - Waiting for a response from the Labour Party

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion

Become a Subscriber!

The cricket thread

Comments