I heard about Jonny Bairstow’s stumping before I saw it. When I finally caught a replay the first thing I noticed was the speed with which Alex Carey got rid of the ball. People who follow county cricket will have seen keepers throw the ball at the stumps regularly – most of the time because people bat outside their crease to seamers – rolling it at the stumps just to keep the batters on their toes.
The difference was that Bairstow was in his crease to start with. If we are to believe the Australian version of events – and I think the evidence probably backs their view – he has developed a habit of marching off down the wicket, which they identified as something to target. Given the speed with which the keeper threw the ball, technically it was still live, so to the letter of the law the dismissal was fair. I wouldn’t want to see it happen regularly, but in my view it was legitimate.
In the following days I saw footage of Bairstow keeping against Nottinghamshire’s Samit Patel in a Twenty20 nine years ago, standing up to the stumps. Patel tried to drive the ball, Jonny took it and held it close to the stumps. Patel did not attempt a run, but as he moved from his position of trying a front-foot drive he slightly lifted his back leg. Bairstow took the bails off and everyone celebrated. It was not the end of an over, but I don’t see much difference between what he did there and what Carey did at Lord’s.
I have been amazed by the fuss this incident has received – even the prime minister waded in – but I think many people are simply misinformed: it was within the laws, it’s been happening for a long time, and Bairstow himself has done similar.
Taken in isolation, Bairstow’s dismissal might make people feel aggrieved, but when you look at the evidence and the protagonists involved, all the fury has been hard to understand. And more than anything, it reminded me that the application of the so-called spirit of cricket seems amazingly inconsistent.
Early in England’s second innings at Lord’s Zak Crawley nicked one down the leg side, where it was caught by Carey. The umpire took a while to make up his mind, in which time Crawley just scratched his guard innocently, as if nothing had happened. When the finger went up he instantly marched off, and there is no doubt he knew he had hit it, but he was trying to influence the umpire’s decision. There seemed little point, with all the technology available now – Australia would only have reviewed it – but this was gamesmanship. Where was England’s spirit of cricket then?
After Bairstow’s dismissal Stuart Broad came in, had a go at Carey and proceeded to spend his entire innings making exaggerated checks with the Australians and the umpires that he was indeed in his ground, or that it actually was the end of an over.
In England’s second innings at Trent Bridge in 2013 Broad nicked a delivery from Ashton Agar, which then flicked off the keeper’s gloves and was caught at slip. The umpire said not out, Australia had no reviews remaining, and Broad pretended nothing had happened. He went on to score another 28 runs, and England won the Test by 14. Sometimes people should have a bit of a think before they try to grab the moral high ground.
In my travels around the world, only in this country is there an obsession with this fantasy spirit of cricket, a concept that we seem to bend to our convenience. In the end you should play hard, play within the rules, and play to win. The Australians have always gone about it that way, England only sometimes.
At Edgbaston Ollie Robinson gave Usman Khawaja a big send-off, and that’s his prerogative. But if you want to play hard, play hard. If you want to be guided by some kind of moral code, be consistent about it.
I think the whole spirit of cricket thing creates more trouble than it’s worth. There was similar fuss last year when Charlie Dean was run out at the non-striker’s end to end a women’s ODI between England and India. With Mankads the batter is trying to gain an advantage, and that method of dismissal is within the rules for a reason. Only in this country does it cause a moral outrage, and I am not sure it is either useful or appropriate.
But perhaps that sense of indignation can help fuel England at Headingley. A thumping at Lord’s would have been hard to come back from but with that and Ben Stokes’s incredible innings on the last day they will have belief and motivation.
The environment Stokes has created, the confidence he gives his players, his tactical awareness, his field placings and bowling changes, and on top of all of that his own performances – I struggle to think of a leader of any team who has come close to what he is doing right now. As they try to find a way back into this series, England really need it.
Once again, with the team for Headingley, they are flying in the face of convention. Promoting Harry Brook, who has just had a couple of very unconvincing dismissals, to three is a real show of faith. He is a wonderful talent but he is going to be right in the firing line, likely to come up against Australia’s best bowlers when they are fresh and the ball is new. Brook has had great success already for England, mainly on pretty flat wickets, and this is the ultimate test. Added to that, with four seamers and a spinner in the side, the onus is on that top six to stand up and be counted.
England need to win every game from here but they will see that as giving them real clarity: they are preparing for three cup finals. For any side to come back from here – and particularly with the forecast suggesting rain will take time out of the game – they would need to get on the front foot and be ambitious.
For this side, that fits perfectly into the mantra. England might be 2-0 down but they will be looking to change nothing about their approach – except its outcome.
