I've always found it difficult to get behind this England team, though was looking forward to watching Harry Brook. However the conduct has been beyond unbecoming, the commentary abysmal (with the exceptions of Tubby and Ponting) and the cricket played both brainless and pathetic. I thought bowling nothing but bouncers to Lyon was the low point, until the endless whingeing about Bairstow. It's meant to be the convicts whingeing... This team is simply embarrasing.
I think England are a terrific side. In general, I have no problem with players or team staff being partisan. They're competing. What excuse does BBC Test Match Special have for being partisan? They're not competing are they...
Well written article, I don’t agree with the dismissal but this spirit of the game thing is silly. Ollie Robinson was abusing Khwaja the previous game ! I mean come on. And at the end of the day umpires decided it, so to blame this on Aussie players is not fair. And I don’t think Broad covered himself in glory when he came out to bat either. But I thought it was a good test match. Watched the whole weekend
The “Spirit of Cricket” is bunkum and the MCC should stop peddling it and remove it from the preamble to the Laws of the Game. All sports are covered by rules and/or laws. They need to be crystal clear and applied by players and officials consistently. But cricket uniquely has the delusion that there are behavioural norms that transcend the Laws. It is, no doubt, derived from the “It’s not cricket” conceit of Victorian gentlemen. The problem is, of course, that whilst the Laws are codified the “Spirit” is subjective.
The current furore over the running out of Bairstow is a case in point. The Laws of cricket were applied and the umpires gave him out. End of the matter you’d think but no for some the “Spirit of Cricket” was breached. The very fact that there are two opposing camps on this emphasises the subjectivity. It’s a matter of opinion not a matter of fact.
The guardianship of the Laws of cricket is with a private members club (MCC) not with the game’s top administrators the “International Cricket Council”. This is an anachronistic absurdity. If you run cricket around the world (the ICC does) then surely you should also determine the game’s laws and rules?
Any parent knows that in disputes with their children the phrase “Because I say so” is used at the last resort. But you can’t do that in a world of clear regulations. You can’t pontificate that something is “against the spirit of cricket” when the Laws say it is allowed. Indeed the very phrase that something “may be allowed but it offends the spirit” is a silly conceit. So long as the “Spirit of Cricket” lingers around the game and its Laws it will be a source of confusion and disagreement. Time to grow up and dump it.
I've always found it difficult to get behind this England team, though was looking forward to watching Harry Brook. However the conduct has been beyond unbecoming, the commentary abysmal (with the exceptions of Tubby and Ponting) and the cricket played both brainless and pathetic. I thought bowling nothing but bouncers to Lyon was the low point, until the endless whingeing about Bairstow. It's meant to be the convicts whingeing... This team is simply embarrasing.
I think England are a terrific side. In general, I have no problem with players or team staff being partisan. They're competing. What excuse does BBC Test Match Special have for being partisan? They're not competing are they...
On point.
Well written article, I don’t agree with the dismissal but this spirit of the game thing is silly. Ollie Robinson was abusing Khwaja the previous game ! I mean come on. And at the end of the day umpires decided it, so to blame this on Aussie players is not fair. And I don’t think Broad covered himself in glory when he came out to bat either. But I thought it was a good test match. Watched the whole weekend
The “Spirit of Cricket” is bunkum and the MCC should stop peddling it and remove it from the preamble to the Laws of the Game. All sports are covered by rules and/or laws. They need to be crystal clear and applied by players and officials consistently. But cricket uniquely has the delusion that there are behavioural norms that transcend the Laws. It is, no doubt, derived from the “It’s not cricket” conceit of Victorian gentlemen. The problem is, of course, that whilst the Laws are codified the “Spirit” is subjective.
The current furore over the running out of Bairstow is a case in point. The Laws of cricket were applied and the umpires gave him out. End of the matter you’d think but no for some the “Spirit of Cricket” was breached. The very fact that there are two opposing camps on this emphasises the subjectivity. It’s a matter of opinion not a matter of fact.
The guardianship of the Laws of cricket is with a private members club (MCC) not with the game’s top administrators the “International Cricket Council”. This is an anachronistic absurdity. If you run cricket around the world (the ICC does) then surely you should also determine the game’s laws and rules?
Any parent knows that in disputes with their children the phrase “Because I say so” is used at the last resort. But you can’t do that in a world of clear regulations. You can’t pontificate that something is “against the spirit of cricket” when the Laws say it is allowed. Indeed the very phrase that something “may be allowed but it offends the spirit” is a silly conceit. So long as the “Spirit of Cricket” lingers around the game and its Laws it will be a source of confusion and disagreement. Time to grow up and dump it.