Jonny Bairstow went for a walk with the ball still in play, and was stumped. The laws of the game say he was out. The spirit of the game suggested (not demanded, for you cannot impose the spirit on anybody) that he ought to have been recalled by Australian captain Pat Cummins. But the spirit has to be a two-way street – we shall come to that in a moment. First, let’s enjoy some of the reactions.
British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, whose rise to the top job had something to do with him stumping his predecessor, thought Australia had contravened the spirit of cricket. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said he was proud of the winning Australian men’s and women’s teams and that his country was right behind Pat Cummins and Alyssa Healy (the captain of the women’s team). It was unclear whether he (as opposed to his country) thought it was right or wrong to stump Bairstow.
Forthright comments
Former cricketers have been more forthright. Brendon McCullum, England’s coach says he will not be having a beer with the opposition any time soon. My heart bleeds for the opposition. Australia should issue a public apology, says Geoff Boycott. They doubtless will, as soon as Britain apologises to Australia for the genocide and dispossession of their indigenous peoples that came with British invasion and occupation.
Were there vestiges of colonial arrogance in what England did? Are they telling Australia that fair play is what they decide it is? Is Bazball the only way to play the game? England controlled the cricketing narrative for decades till other nations – former colonies – caught up and then overtook them.
And now with Bazball are they attempting to control the narrative again? If all that sounds faintly ridiculous, that’s because it probably is. A dozy batsman was stumped at a crucial point in a Test and it becomes a battle between the stiff upper lip and the suntanned limb.
In identical circumstances, England would have done the identical thing. Had the ball missed the stumps, wouldn’t Bairstow have attempted a single? Sadly, the ‘spirit’ usually comes accompanied by hypocrisy, which is why there is a cry for removing the grey areas in the laws.
Moral choices
Cricket is unique in that it gives individuals and teams a chance to make moral choices that are in areas beyond the laws. Making the laws water tight is not a solution, for the ambiguity between what is legal and what is sportsmanlike is what reveals character. And cricket is about revealing character; players must be given an opportunity to choose.
Despite the change in emphasis in the law on running out a non-striker backing up, some bowlers will still not do it. Bairstow wasn’t attempting a single, but he is an experienced international batsman who ought to have known better. Would he have gone for a walk had a spinner been bowling and Alex Carey had been standing up to the wicket?
It is surprising how international players are ignorant (or affect to be) of the laws of the game. Australia were upset when the catch Mitchell Starc took was disallowed because he dragged the ball on the ground. Either they don’t know the law or feel it has to be ‘My country right or wrong’, a dangerous attitude on a sports field.
‘Two-way street’
Which brings us to the spirit being a two-way street. It might have been good PR for Cummins to recall Bairstow, and let us assume he did, in the interests of the ‘spirit’ (a good thing to have in the game, but now being increasingly ridiculed). What ought to be Bairstow’s response then? For the spirit to work as it should, Bairstow would then have to throw his wicket away next ball. He was out legally, then given a reprieve by the ‘spirit’, and now he ought to return ‘spirit’ with ‘spirit’.
You can argue this will be against the interests of his team, but then so was setting out for a walk with the ball still in play. Did no one in the team — captain, players, coaching staff — notice that Bairstow had done it before and ought to be told?
Another problem with the spirit is that it often takes focus away from the performances — in this case Australia’s all-round superiority, and Ben Stokes’s stunning century. Controversy never hurt the gates, though.
