Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

130 to win. Piece of cake.

GarlicJam wrote:Your comment about the 2013 Ashes being remembered for the (Aus) victory, not for the manner it was achieved is wrong, I think. The enduring memory of that series for me and a lot of Aus fans IS how they were won, namely, Mitchell Johnson's aggression and dominance - coming after so many trials and tribulations for him, especially in Ashes tours of England. His personal redemption. The stumps being scattered again and again, Johnson steaming in, snarling (with that "mean mother moe"), the English batters' palpable fear. As you say, coming after a poor period for Aus, and annihilating England when they were the underdogs really helped.

A lost in translation moment, GJ. The example you give somewhat does the job I was intending.... the point I was trying to make was that Australian's didn't care about the possible negative optics of how that victory was achieved, during 2013-14 everyone got lost in a frenzy of pommie bashing and whatever you can look back on nowadays, in light of the whole toxicity discussions that followed, wouldn't be honest. As Mitchell snarled and spat insults at batters telling them they would be next in line for slaughter, no one questioned whether it was over the line. Australia were humilating their old enemy, and that aspect of it became the enduring memory .... the aggression was celebrated.

On a personal level, it left a feeling of awe to me. A lot of England fans didn't like it, and some Australian's now might retreat away from it in hindsight - but I don't understand why. For me, that is the essence of test cricket. Part of the test is to make things as uncomfortable and difficult as possible for your opponent, and great players or characters rise to that challenge. In 2013-14, a team that had proven to be average for a long time rose up and upped the stakes, the other team couldn't live with it. So much so, I think that memory will continue to haunt touring teams to Australia for a long time.

GarlicJam wrote:Overall, I think the Aus team under Cummins' captaincy IS a far less aggressive and in-your-face team. There's still Warner, and Starc, and others, who are confrontational, but maybe less of them?

Cummins is obviously from the other side of the spectrum to Warner, but you can see the role and expectation that exists in Aussie cricket culture in how often Cummins captaincy and personality is criticised. There seems to be a lot of people in the Aussie press who hate the fact that he is a nice, more mild mannered bloke, or that he is a tactically cautious as a captain, and even when times are good there seems to be a background noise about sacking him that is ever present. In fact, during this test I read one article in the Aussie press which lingered on the fact that never in a Boxing Day test had they seen an Aussie captain revert to having 4 men on the boundary while Australia were bowling, never mind the fact that it was at a time Australia were on top. Cummins field placings vs England last summer were similarly criticised a lot.

And while Cummins does indeed seem a meek personality in comparison to other Aussie captains, the stumping of Jonny Bairstow leaves no doubt that he will also sacrifice what would be considered "spirit of the game" stuff to get one over an opponent.... (which again, I am all for.....). The Carey stumping I guess is another example again of what we are talking about though, I didn't get any sense from Australians that they cared at all about the optics of that. It was unanimously argued that it was good cricket (which it was)....

Arthur Crabtree wrote:

GarlicJam wrote:Overall, I think the Aus team under Cummins' captaincy IS a far less aggressive and in-your-face team.

Fair enough. The last Ashes series was dominated by Cummins' okaying of the Bairstow run out. But I accept that opinions vary on that.

Hugely.

Probably more so between your countryfolk than mine.

I think Cummins' mildness is often mistaken for meekness.

Maybe not in your face aggressive, but the Bairstow stumping, and him handling the subsequent bullsh!t, is a good indication of the lack of meekness. Which is along the lines of what you said Sussex.

But your line: "the stumping of Jonny Bairstow leaves no doubt that he will also sacrifice what would be considered "spirit of the game" stuff to get one over an opponent...." shows a bit of not understanding the Aus psyche.

I suspect the spirit of the game was nowhere near a consideration - it was just playing the game.
It may not be commonplace, but it certainly isn't an unknown thing in Aus club and Shield cricket for the same/similar action to be attempted.

After the event, when the bullsh!t unfolded, it may well have been a consideration, but only briefly, I reckon.

GarlicJam wrote:But your line: "the stumping of Jonny Bairstow leaves no doubt that he will also sacrifice what would be considered "spirit of the game" stuff to get one over an opponent...." shows a bit of not understanding the Aus psyche.

I suspect the spirit of the game was nowhere near a consideration - it was just playing the game

I think we are communicating the same thing in different ways, GJ. The bottom line is, if you are playing against the Aussies, whether the captain is telling you to get ready for a trip to hospital inbetween F bombs, or whether or not he seems a nice guy to have a beer with after, if you expect either to not punish you on the field for idiocy, then be prepared to be disappointed. Nice, hostile, whatever... play hard, play to win.

The Carey/Bairstow thing for me shows where the concept of fairness in the game becomes rather nebulous. I found the English reaction infinitely more embarrassing to the game of cricket, then a wicketkeeper doing his job.

Fair enough, Sussex.

I do like your last sentence.

Pakistan 115 all out

Rizwan 28

Hazelwood 4-16
Lyon 3-36

Garry quietly goes about his business taking wickets when he is needed.

Australia 130-2

Warner 57
Labuschagne 62*

Sajid 2-49

I know Warner is not everyone cup of tea, but he's been a major force at the top of the innings, especially at home, where half your Tests are played.

He will be hard to replace.

sussexpob wrote: I found the English reaction infinitely more embarrassing to the game of cricket, then a wicketkeeper doing his job.

Me too.

A bunch of Australian friends asked me what I made of the run out, I think expecting a rise/rant about spirit of the game. I answered that I couldn't understand what all the fuss was about, Bairstow was dozy and deserved to be run out, and the English reaction was an embarrassment making me understand why the Aussies call us 'whingeing poms...'