The Bairstow-Carey Stumping

Blah Blah...

    I had no intention of adding to the often febrile collection of writing and musing on the ‘spirit of cricket’ following the acrimonious Ashes Test at Lord’s during which Alex Carey stumped Jonny Bairstow. Oddly, however, it would appear that a significant number of my loyal subscribers have regarded this an inappropriate omission. Some have even suggested that I’m in dereliction of duty.

    What both sides of this mythical divide seem unwilling or unable to admit is that, theoretically, both have a point. In this particular case the Australian argument is significantly stronger than the English one but it would help, nonetheless, if some ‘moral’ ground was conceded.

    Morality and Ethics was part of my chosen High School curriculum and included such topics as the ‘Just War’, euthanasia and abortion. So even using the same terminology to discuss a dismissal in cricket is more than an anathema. It is nonsense.

    The ‘Spirit of Cricket’ is like the wind, blowing hard, soft or not at all. Except it’s better than the wind because it can be called upon to blow at any speed an individual or team would like it to blow. And you can ignore it without material consequences. It never existed for the first century of the game’s history unless you count nefarious spirits.

    Cricket was first called the ‘Gentleman’s Game’ because it was started by the landed gentry of England for the purposes of gaming, or gambling, and there are very few ‘gentlemen’ when it comes to that pastime. Or very few gentlemen who won’t stoop to whatever lowly level is required to ensure a win. Only in the early Victorian era did a pious group of god-fearing Christian cricketers, horrified by the skullduggery in the game, encourage a more genteel, ‘gentlemanly’ approach to the game.

    Old history is one thing, it helps to understand. Recent history is more relevant. There is a large cultural ‘divide’ in the way cricket is played at a social and club level between the two countries. As a veteran of 15 or so tours of both England and Australia, and having started my career in England after growing up in South Africa as the product of English emigrees, my view is obviously skewed but it’s ‘neutral’ enough.

    Stories of club and social games becoming ‘heated’ in the UK tend to capture headlines in the way that unusual events do. Such stories are often written and recounted with a tongue-in-cheek style. They are unusual which, in itself, makes them amusing. In Australia the same style might be used to tell a story about a batter being recalled or a captain withdrawing an appeal. No doubt there is a similar camaraderie amongst Grade and Club teams after play in both countries (or not) but the atmosphere on the field, anecdotally and as an observer, is markedly different.

    I wouldn’t have had the emotional fortitude and ‘character’ (or ability) to play any respectable level of cricket in Australia, from what I’ve seen and heard. It is played ‘hard’. Whereas the English are more likely to back off, physically and verbally, when a talented 15 or 16-year-old makes an early debut in the 1^st XI, such fripperies are not afforded to precocious Australians. If you’re good enough, you’re old enough.

    There is obviously no chance of regulating the ‘Spirit of Cricket.’ Stuart Broad’s column in ‘The Mail’ was interesting, not least for its contradictions and his own reputation as a chancer-when-required. His infamous ‘stand’ during the 2013 Ashes when he edged the ball to first slip, you know…that doesn’t count because ‘walking’ has long been at the discretion of the umpire. That’s his job. You do yours and let him do his.

    Broad also addressed the fact that Bairstow had attempted a long-range stumping against Marnus Labuschagne on the first day at Lord’s, just as Carey accomplished against Bairstow. Ah, but that was different, Broad told his ghost writer. “Marnus was attempting to gain an advantage by batting out of his crease. Jonny was not attempting to gain any advantage.”

    As amusing as the point is, there is merit in the principle. Any cricketer attempting to gain an unfair advantage over the opposition should be fair game for any legitimate dismissal within the laws of the game. Which is exactly why run outs at the non-striker’s end should be embraced, not cursed.

    The problem lies in the definition of both ‘unfair’ and ‘advantage’. Labuschagne batting a yard out of his crease to limit the chances of lbw is certainly seeking an advantage, but how is that unfair? A dozy number 10 wandering a few inches out of his crease at the non-striker’s end is not seeking an advantage or straying into ‘unfair’ territory, but that’s why the game has laws. Because those few inches may just turn into a match-winning advantage.

    It shouldn’t be this hard to define what’s fair and reasonable. But it is. A batter being run out after completing a single and leaving his crease to congratulate his partner on reaching a milestone is obviously an unpleasant look for the game. The law does state that a batter needs to be ‘attempting a run’ but that is mitigated by the convoluted and subjective definition of when the ball becomes ‘dead’.    

    So, as things stand, the game will continue to be played in whatever spirit teams and individuals decide is appropriate. And let’s not kid ourselves, that spirit changes from moment to moment in a game of any consequence. The ‘Spirit of Cricket’ is undefinable. Universally.