The mankading expert has his say.
A closer look at this moment of magic from Ollie Pope 👀 pic.twitter.com/AfOkx5d0VH
— Sky Sports Cricket (@SkyCricket) June 4, 2022
Made in England @lfc.8
Broad and Bairstow really appeared to enjoy that! Different when the shoe is on the other foot isn’t it?
3 Likes
Like I said , no problem with this dismissal. Just don’t do the whine and whinge when someone is mankaded (which is actually a batsman taking wilful advantage)
2 Likes
I support NZ. I don’t see an issue with this wicket. Nor should anyone. Frustrating sure as de Grandhomme took his eye of the ball. That’s about it.
1 Like
Neither do I. Nor Bairstow’s. Where I would draw the line was if Carey either hesitated, then threw, or waited and threw. But he caught the ball and instantly threw it. Where Bairstow was on the pitch and what he thought was happening is his problem at that point.
3 Likes
It totally is. I forget the game recently, I think a 20-20, where there was a run out at the non strikers end as a result of the batter leaving the crease early. One first glimpse it looked cheap, but was done in response to the “not in the spirit or rules” actions of the batter trying to get a head start on his run. This is different as there was no advantage being sought. In this case, I dont even really understand what the argument is for the ball not being dead before he left his crease.
2 Likes
Bairstow had done similar a number of times during the innings and could have even gotten out earlier that over. Carey caught the ball, then threw it back at the stumps as a gamble that Bairstow would walk out of his crease, so the ball was still in play before he left his crease.
It’s different to a ‘mankad’ in the fact that Bairstow isn’t trying to steal an advantage by leaving the crease.
It’s a cheap way of getting a wicket that does nothing for the game.
2 Likes
At what point are you considering the ball dead, as soon as it touches Carey’s gloves? Carey literally catches the ball and throws it in one motion before Bairstow has even left his crease. It’s batting 101 to check the ball is dead before leaving your crease, it was moronic play by Bairstow and he was punished for it. You are taught at 8 years old to “play to the whistle” and wait for the umpire to call over.
2 Likes
If he was never in his crease I would accept that. But after the ball went passed him he immediately got back into his crease. At that point with the ball in the keeper’s gloves and the on strike batter at home, how is the ball not dead? What can reasonably be interpreted as the intention of the batter then ambling forward?
I am not sure I even have an issue with the Aussies for trying it. In test cricket there is a lot of mileage to be gained in doing things that keep the opponent honest, tio keep more things in their head, even if you know your threat or appeal isnt going to go anywhere. But I just dont understand how the Ump could defend that having a reasonable expectation of the ball being live. I wouldnt be surprised if even the aussies were a bit surprised he gave it.
2 Likes
What is for sure is a precedent has now been set, and it wouldn’t surprise me if England try a similar trick in the next match, though given Bairstow will be the bloke throwing at the stumps it will likely result in four overthrows.
20.1.2 The ball shall be considered to be dead when it is clear to the bowler’s end umpire that the fielding side and both batters at the wicket have ceased to regard it as in play.
Clearly if Carey is instantly throwing it back at the stumps then the fielding team have not considered it dead. Again, this decision really only would have been controversial if Carey had waited until he saw Bairstow creep out of his crease and not done it in a single action, because the umpire should then have called the ball dead since Carey would have met rule
20.1.1.1 it is finally settled in the hands of the wicket-keeper or of the bowler.
That would be true if throwing the ball at the stumps was only ever done for the sole reason of thinking that in that moment you can catch the batter out. It clearly isnt though.
1 Like
I’m sure the bad feeling started when Starc ‘caught’ a ball, wasn’t in control of the ball and dragged it on the out field…trying to get someone out by cheating and did he think camera’s wouldn’t see…from then on Starc,Cummins all started with bouncers, but more aimed at body and head…I would say…cmon England fight fire with fire…but no that’s not us…so I’ll just say…bring on Headingley, the stands won’t be as quiet as Lords…
To the Lords Members - fuck you.
To the cricket - once again compelling.
Some names too.
https://twitter.com/Ian_Fraser/status/1675616798257946624?t=tQu2JZ3xUpIyoGvDguOfhA&s=19
1 Like
Strauss blaming those who paid £25 for the booing.
He is a prick.
1 Like
This rivalry is reaching Liverpool v United levels.
Reading the Aussie and Pommy press is entertaining. Contrasting views who would have thought.
Poms - cheating Aussies, ball tamperers, no spirit, win at any cost…and the go for a quote guy Piers
Aussies - Hypocrite poms - Bairstow trying the same thing, Pope v Colin DG, Broad not walking when edging to first slip, ball tamperers (OK not to sandpaper level), legit out.
Hurry up for the next chapter. Seriously good cricket.
2 Likes
The Hypocrisy from this English team is astounding:
1 Like
I suspect that Broad and I would get on VERY well.