R-E-S-P-E-C-T: Find out what it means, Benny
England's fielders ambled after balls struck through the cordon, running like puppets with broken strings. Only muted acknowledgment was given when each Indian batter brought up three figures. The match ended almost immediately after that.
Fairly assessed, it was sooky and petulant conduct, driven by Stokes' incandescence at not getting his own way.
This, to all intents and purposes, is of course the same England team that cried with poisonous fury after the Lord's Test of the 2023 Ashes series, once Jonny Bairstow was stumped by Australian wicketkeeper Alex Carey having absent-mindedly meandered from his crease. You almost get the sense of a theme …
By any sensible analysis of what is legislated for under the Laws of Cricket, Bairstow was fairly dismissed that day. Equally, Gill's decision to not agree to prematurely end the Test match at Old Trafford was entirely within the rules of the game. The England team's posturing and remonstrations were misguided, unedifying and wrong.
In almost any other sport – golf is the true exception which comes to mind – you would readily cop Stokes' and his teammates' behaviour. In any football code, Stokes' conduct would be seen as positively de rigueur. Yet cricket is supposedly different. For not only is it governed by the laws of the game, but also the esoteric spirit of cricket, which ties the laws together with a veritable golden thread.
What the Laws of Cricket say is that although the laws themselves have governed the playing of the game for nearly three centuries, cricket owes much of its particular appeal and enjoyment to the fact that it should also be played within the right 'spirit'. But if indeed it exists, what constitutes cricket's spirit is hard to identify.
The preamble to the Laws of Cricket are directed to this concept of the spirit of the game. The opening paragraphs state that the notion of respect is central to the spirit of cricket. It is expressly written that central to the spirit of this noble sport is to play hard and fair; to show respect for your opponents; to show self-discipline even in the face of adversity; to congratulate the opposition on their successes; and to establish an overall positive atmosphere.
Could the case be prosecuted that the England team's actions in the fourth Test were consistent with this idea of the spirit of cricket?
It would seem not. The England team's feigned incredulousness at India's decision to play on despite the likely impossibility of a match result, and everything that occurred thereafter, certainly has a spirit interwoven. But a slightly malicious one.
The swearing of England's fielders, picked up by the stump microphones, and the incredulity displayed by Stokes and Harry Brook especially, bears scant correlation to the notion of the good spirit of anything at all.
A mountain of pressure can reveal character; however this was not a situation where pressure existed. This was a Test match meandering towards oblivion. Stokes' ungracious reaction to his team being required to play on revealed much, but not much of it positive.
Loading
All of this leaves this columnist unconvinced that the spirit of cricket exists otherwise than in a form of words written within the rules of the sport.
In 2013, the Australian Test umpire Simon Taufel delivered the Marylebone Cricket Club's Cowdrey Spirit of Cricket lecture at a black tie dinner at Lord's, during which he argued that the spirit of cricket means that the values of the game take priority over personal gain or advancement.
If that's an accurate summation, you have to question whether it still exists at all.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
7NEWS
13 minutes ago
- 7NEWS
England in box seat for victory over India as ‘lazy decision' ruins famous day: ‘Shame'
England had moved to within 35 runs of securing a famous victory over India when bad light and torrential rain ended an extraordinary fourth day of the final Test at The Oval on Sunday. Harry Brook and Joe Root shared a superb fourth-wicket partnership of 195 to put England on the brink of completing a record run chase that would have given them a 3-1 series win. With India on the ropes, however, and England needing just another 73 runs, Brook played a wild stroke and skied a catch to depart for 111. That gave India a glimmer of hope and they made the most of it. Jacob Bethell also fell to a rash shot for five and Root, having completed a masterful 39th Test century, nicked a catch to wicketkeeper Dhruv Jurel off Prasidh Krishna to spark wild Indian celebrations. In mounting tension, Jamie Smith and Jamie Overton struggled to get bat on ball, surviving several frenzied appeals before the umpires decided it was too dark to continue. The players left the field and shortly afterwards a heavy rain shower made conditions unplayable, depriving the crowd of a tense finale to a day of unremitting drama. The sun shone again after The Oval was emptied, sparking questions about the process to call stumps. 'Still 20 mins away from possible start time, everyone has their sunglasses on at the train station,' England great Stuart Broad, who has joined Channel 7's commentary team for the Ashes this summer, said. 'Felt the supporters deserved to see a finish to that Test Match today. Felt a lazy decision to call it off at 6pm in my opinion. I wonder who makes it?' Harsha Bhogle wrote: 'I am glad there are people other than me asking why the covers couldn't have come off in time to allow us to witness an extraordinary climax. Now we come back tomorrow but the heavy roller can be used and that can be a game-changer.' Responding to criticism that he was starting a conspiracy theory, he replied: 'No, not at all. All I wanted to say was that we had 45 mins and in many parts of the world, they run a super sopper and try and get the covers off as quickly as possible. It might still have not been possible but I would have liked to see some effort made.' But in the end a wonderful series — all five Tests have now gone into a fifth day — will receive a nerve-racking denouement. England will resume on 6-339 on Monday, with bowler Chris Woakes unlikely to bat due to a dislocated shoulder, and India still in with a chance of a victory that would level a gripping five-match series. Woakes could be seen kitted up and with his arm in a sling, though, and could conceivably find himself at the crease on Monday, though presumably only at the non-striker's end. India had the better of the morning session after England resumed on 1-50, dismissing Ben Duckett for 54 and Ollie Pope for 27 to leave the hosts wobbling on 3-106. Brook, on 19, was lucky to survive when Mohammed Siraj caught him in the deep before stepping back on to the boundary cushion. The prolific right-hander made him pay a heavy price for the error, striking two sixes and 12 fours all round the ground to reach his 10th Test century off 91 balls. Root provided the perfect foil, continuing his consistent form throughout the series, as the Indian bowlers struggled to get much movement under grey skies. Once past three figures, Brook launched an all-out attack, hitting Akash Deep for two fours in an over before attempting a third and Siraj completed the catch on this occasion. Brook's bat flew out of his hands as he played the stroke and he had to retrieve it before returning to the pavilion to a standing ovation from the crowd. He probably believed he had done enough to ensure victory for his team but India had other ideas. The highest successful run chase at The Oval was England's 9-263 against Australia in 1902.
Sydney Morning Herald
2 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Handshakegate proves hypocrisy is the bedrock of great Test cricket
In the very next breath, Ponting praises Duckett for not doing what he would have done, saying 'I think I like him more now for not reacting to that'. These two statements, side-by-side, seem like a contradiction, especially from the mouth of a man who is no stranger to pushing the boundaries of cricket etiquette. Ponting is in opposition with himself. And that is not a criticism in the slightest; it just encapsulates why everybody is so worked up by India's tour of England, and why that sets up a terrifically tense Ashes series in Australia from November. Spiteful flashpoints, like the one that turned the final hour of the fourth Test at Old Trafford into international headlines and rolling hot takes, drive cricket enthusiasts to the margins. To adopt a fixed position at one end of the spectrum or the other, guided by an internal moral compass rooted in the laws of cricket or the spirit of cricket, or some other subjective code to live by. The thing about the moral compass, however, is that the needle so often rotates when circumstances demand it. This regularly results in accusations of 'hypocrisy'. From England to India for time-wasting. From India to England for tantrum-throwing. From Jonathan Trott to India for being a 'milestone-obsessed country' (less than two days after Joe Root overtook Ponting in the all-time runs list to sit behind only Sachin Tendulkar). Australia, meanwhile, are having quite a bit of fun at England's expense, highlighted by Mitchell Johnson's declaration that the Anderson–Tendulkar Trophy 'isn't a handshake convention'. But cries of double standards aside, all three teams are more similar than they'd like to admit. Had Shubman Gill been tired and injured like Ben Stokes, he'd maybe have liked to end the match early too (no suggestion of a similar meltdown). And Justin Langer predicted 'if it were Ben Stokes whose young teammates had the chance to score a Test 100, he would have done the exact same thing'. It is difficult not to see Australia adopting both positions if it suited. The only point being that hypocrisy is a symptom of emotional over-investment, and shows the players care so much about disagreeing with an opponent that they are willing to disagree with themselves. It is the opposite of going through the motions, which is the antithesis of boring. And that has ensured, in Langer's words, 'Test cricket still has that hard edge' on the eve of the Ashes. The funniest part is that the 'hard edge' may be brought by England, a team developing a reputation more resembling what Australia used to be. No team played the moral high ground better than the previous iteration of Australia, the masters of instigating conflict, needling an opponent until they finally retaliate and then claiming maltreatment. In the words of Nathan Lyon, they played the game while 'headbutting' the line between aggression and transgression. As Johnson wrote in The Nightly last week: 'Let's not pretend Australia are choirboys'. England all-rounder Moeen Ali, in his 2018 autobiography, named Australia as the only opponent he ever disliked, citing their 'disrespect of people and players'. There was the Chappell underarm delivery of 1981. And Langer and Brad Haddin both 'accidentally' knocking the bails off just before their teams tried to claim wickets. Then there was Steve Waugh v Curtly Ambrose. Dennis Lillee v Javed Miandad. Glenn McGrath v Ramnaresh Sarwan. David Warner v Joe Root. Warner v Quinton de Kock. Warner v Faf du Plessis. Warner v The World. During a 2014 series in Cape Town, Du Plessis likened Michael Clarke's Test team to 'a pack of dogs' for the way they swarmed around an opposition batsman in the field. The South African was also taunted about his ball-tampering charge by none other than Warner. Loading Australians loved to hate Warner, though we also loved to cheer him to a double century in his 100th Test on Boxing Day 2022 (hypocrisy?). And of course, there was Sandpapergate, and Langer took over from Darren Lehmann and started talking about the importance of being a good bloke, which was perhaps a variation of New Zealand's no-dickhead policy and which brings us to England under Brendon McCullum. The architect of Bazball told the keepers of the spirit of the game from time immemorial that they are 'too nice', and so they 'piled into' India during that controversial fourth Test finale. 'I've had a lot of compliments,' said chief antagonist Harry Brook. 'Everybody says it was awesome to watch, and it looked like there was 11 versus two out there when we were fielding, and it was good fun. It made fielding a lot more enjoyable.' It was not in keeping with McCullum's nice-guy status as a player, nor was it in keeping with his recruitment of Gilbert Enoka, the All Blacks adviser who made famous their no-dickheads policy. Some would call this hypocrisy, too; Cricket Australia chief executive Todd Greenberg would call it 'talkability'. A similar phenomenon occurred two years ago when the last Ashes series was in full flight in England. In Australia, their women's football team were preparing to play the Matildas in the World Cup semi-finals, but most travelling British journalists couldn't tear their minds away from the cricket.
The Age
2 hours ago
- The Age
Handshakegate proves hypocrisy is the bedrock of great Test cricket
In the very next breath, Ponting praises Duckett for not doing what he would have done, saying 'I think I like him more now for not reacting to that'. These two statements, side-by-side, seem like a contradiction, especially from the mouth of a man who is no stranger to pushing the boundaries of cricket etiquette. Ponting is in opposition with himself. And that is not a criticism in the slightest; it just encapsulates why everybody is so worked up by India's tour of England, and why that sets up a terrifically tense Ashes series in Australia from November. Spiteful flashpoints, like the one that turned the final hour of the fourth Test at Old Trafford into international headlines and rolling hot takes, drive cricket enthusiasts to the margins. To adopt a fixed position at one end of the spectrum or the other, guided by an internal moral compass rooted in the laws of cricket or the spirit of cricket, or some other subjective code to live by. The thing about the moral compass, however, is that the needle so often rotates when circumstances demand it. This regularly results in accusations of 'hypocrisy'. From England to India for time-wasting. From India to England for tantrum-throwing. From Jonathan Trott to India for being a 'milestone-obsessed country' (less than two days after Joe Root overtook Ponting in the all-time runs list to sit behind only Sachin Tendulkar). Australia, meanwhile, are having quite a bit of fun at England's expense, highlighted by Mitchell Johnson's declaration that the Anderson–Tendulkar Trophy 'isn't a handshake convention'. But cries of double standards aside, all three teams are more similar than they'd like to admit. Had Shubman Gill been tired and injured like Ben Stokes, he'd maybe have liked to end the match early too (no suggestion of a similar meltdown). And Justin Langer predicted 'if it were Ben Stokes whose young teammates had the chance to score a Test 100, he would have done the exact same thing'. It is difficult not to see Australia adopting both positions if it suited. The only point being that hypocrisy is a symptom of emotional over-investment, and shows the players care so much about disagreeing with an opponent that they are willing to disagree with themselves. It is the opposite of going through the motions, which is the antithesis of boring. And that has ensured, in Langer's words, 'Test cricket still has that hard edge' on the eve of the Ashes. The funniest part is that the 'hard edge' may be brought by England, a team developing a reputation more resembling what Australia used to be. No team played the moral high ground better than the previous iteration of Australia, the masters of instigating conflict, needling an opponent until they finally retaliate and then claiming maltreatment. In the words of Nathan Lyon, they played the game while 'headbutting' the line between aggression and transgression. As Johnson wrote in The Nightly last week: 'Let's not pretend Australia are choirboys'. England all-rounder Moeen Ali, in his 2018 autobiography, named Australia as the only opponent he ever disliked, citing their 'disrespect of people and players'. There was the Chappell underarm delivery of 1981. And Langer and Brad Haddin both 'accidentally' knocking the bails off just before their teams tried to claim wickets. Then there was Steve Waugh v Curtly Ambrose. Dennis Lillee v Javed Miandad. Glenn McGrath v Ramnaresh Sarwan. David Warner v Joe Root. Warner v Quinton de Kock. Warner v Faf du Plessis. Warner v The World. During a 2014 series in Cape Town, Du Plessis likened Michael Clarke's Test team to 'a pack of dogs' for the way they swarmed around an opposition batsman in the field. The South African was also taunted about his ball-tampering charge by none other than Warner. Loading Australians loved to hate Warner, though we also loved to cheer him to a double century in his 100th Test on Boxing Day 2022 (hypocrisy?). And of course, there was Sandpapergate, and Langer took over from Darren Lehmann and started talking about the importance of being a good bloke, which was perhaps a variation of New Zealand's no-dickhead policy and which brings us to England under Brendon McCullum. The architect of Bazball told the keepers of the spirit of the game from time immemorial that they are 'too nice', and so they 'piled into' India during that controversial fourth Test finale. 'I've had a lot of compliments,' said chief antagonist Harry Brook. 'Everybody says it was awesome to watch, and it looked like there was 11 versus two out there when we were fielding, and it was good fun. It made fielding a lot more enjoyable.' It was not in keeping with McCullum's nice-guy status as a player, nor was it in keeping with his recruitment of Gilbert Enoka, the All Blacks adviser who made famous their no-dickheads policy. Some would call this hypocrisy, too; Cricket Australia chief executive Todd Greenberg would call it 'talkability'. A similar phenomenon occurred two years ago when the last Ashes series was in full flight in England. In Australia, their women's football team were preparing to play the Matildas in the World Cup semi-finals, but most travelling British journalists couldn't tear their minds away from the cricket.
