It was the stumping that sparked a storm. But who really broke the spirit of cricket?

Save articles for later

Add articles to your saved list and come back to them any time.

Pat Cummins: Saint or sinner? A cleanskin captain who plays by the rules or just another Australian cheat?

At 12.45pm last Sunday in London, with the second Ashes Test on the line at Lord’s, a bizarre dismissal blew up into an international incident, one deemed important enough for the prime ministers of both England and Australia to weigh in.

Pat Cummins leads the Australian team off the field at Lord’s.Credit: Reuters

Alex Carey’s stumping of Jonny Bairstow, arguably the most controversial dismissal of its kind in the game’s long history, and Cummins’ endorsement of it outraged England. Despite the play being within the letter of the Laws of Cricket, England captain Ben Stokes and coach Brendon McCullum claimed Australia had contravened the “spirit of cricket”.

As captain, Cummins had the power to withdraw his team’s appeal and call the batter back, effectively overriding the umpire’s decision. His decision not to, as much as Carey’s actions, turned the traditionally restrained terraces of Lord’s into a seething cauldron and the august Long Room at Lord’s into a snake pit.

The incident sparked intense debate over sportsmanship, exposed skeletons from the closets of both countries, and triggered unruly scenes in one of the most exclusive and privileged clubs in international sport.

Had Cummins allowed Bairstow to bat on in England’s pursuit of victory at a point when the game was in the balance, he would have been feted for a great act of sportsmanship. For putting fair play above winning. For upholding the “spirit of cricket”.

He didn’t. So, he and his team were instead labelled cheats and accused by England’s captain and coach, McCullum and Stokes, of not playing in the spirit of the game, never mind that the Australians had played within the laws of cricket.

On which side of the line – or crease – you stand on this issue has been largely determined by the team you support. But the “spirit of cricket” is far from black or white, and much of the commentary this week has failed to consider its many shades of grey. This is a code of ethics that even former captains and umpires struggle to define – yet all accept it is integral to the game.

History

The Marylebone Cricket Club, which owns Lord’s, are the custodians of the Laws of Cricket. In 2000, the “spirit of cricket” was formally enshrined into the Laws, but its essence was part of the game long before that.

Former Australia captain Bill Woodfull famously said during the infamous Bodyline series of 1932-33, when England devised a strategy of short-pitched bowling to tame the might of Don Bradman: “There are two teams out there. One is trying to play cricket, the other is not.”

Cricket may well be the only sport in the world with the spirit of the game in its laws. As renowned former cricket writer and broadcaster Mike Coward pointed out: “You don’t often hear of the talk of the spirit of football or the spirit of any other sport in this sense.”

Its idea is premised on the sport, originally played by the elite classes in England, seeing itself as the “gentleman’s game” for its respect for fair play and sportsmanship.

“You can call it a set of values, a code of ethics, a point of difference to other sports,” respected former Australian umpire Simon Taufel said.

“I think there’s been some tradition here where we try to teach people what is a sense of fair play and the intrinsic value of cricket, and the way it differentiates itself from other sports.”

In the 1990s, alarmed by the reports of poor behaviour in schools cricket that had come to the attention of Marylebone Cricket Club secretary Roger Knight, former England captains and MCC members Ted Dexter and Lord Colin Cowdrey sought to formally define the spirit of cricket.

“I talked to Colin Cowdrey about the etiquette of golf,” Dexter said in an interview for Coward’s 2013 book Champions: The World’s Greatest Cricketers Speak.

“I said golf has rules, and etiquette is rule number one. The only place that ‘spirit of cricket’ appeared in our laws was under ‘fair and unfair play’ which said thee captain shall be responsible not only for the conduct of the game, not only within the laws but within the spirit of the game.

“This was the only time those words were mentioned in the whole of the laws. So we said why don’t we sort of lift that out and just spell out what we think we mean by it.”

The spirit of cricket

Respect and fair play are central themes to the definition of the spirit of cricket, outlined in the 163-word preamble to the Laws of Cricket. But these are subjective concepts open to interpretation.

One person’s idea of fair play is different to another’s, as seen by the furore over Australia’s decision not rescind the appeal to dismiss Bairstow. That’s before even considering varying attitudes across generations, and in locations around the world.

“There’s a tremendous feeling that cricket is a global game and needs to be inclusive,” Taufel said. “The problem that you have with the spirit of cricket or any values or ethics, they mean different things to different people based on their own location, heritage, environment, how they’ve been brought up.

“While these are written in the backyard of London, they apply to India, Sri Lanka, New Zealand, the US, Mongolia, South America – anywhere that cricket is played.

“We’re very conscious that those things are global thoughts and ideas and words that apply all over the place, and we leave it to people to make their own variations to it, which is why we have playing conditions that override the laws of cricket.”

Under the Laws of Cricket, the umpires are the sole judges of fair and unfair play. If Taufel – voted the International Cricket Council’s umpire of the year five times, and who officiated in 350 internationals including 87 Tests – is unable to offer an objective definition of the spirit of cricket, what hope does anyone else?

Former Australia captain Mark Taylor can’t – and he was renowned for fair play in an international career of 217 games, 117 as skipper.

“Trying to work out and say what is the spirit of the game sounds very difficult – it’s nearly impossible to define,” Taylor, who captained Australia from 1994-99 before holding post-playing roles as a respected administrator and commentator, said.

“To me, it’s as simple as playing the game in the right way.”

Which, again, is subjective.

Long Room rabble

No place in world cricket represents the old-school establishment more than the Long Room at Lord’s. Until 1999, MCC membership was exclusively male. Regulations are tight. The dress code requires a tailored jacket or blazer with collared shirt and tie, and tailored trousers. At all times, mobile phones cannot be used inside the pavilion – a regulation clearly not adhered to judging by the amount of footage to have emerged of the hostile reception Australia received at lunch last Sunday.

At no other international venue do fans have such close access to the players as they make their way onto the field.

For the privilege, applicants must be proposed by a full member, attend an interview with two of the club’s endorsers, which could include a member of the MCC Committee, and there’s a 29-year wait for full membership. It costs a prospective member £45,000 ($86,387) to jump the waiting list.

By comparison, the Melbourne Cricket Club requires a proposer and a seconder for new members. Unlike Lord’s, there is no way to skip the queue, currently at 40 years. Membership at the SCG does not require a proposer to join a 14-year waiting list, which was previously able to be circumvented by an $11,000 gold membership that is now closed.

Money, though, does not buy class, as seen by the unruly behaviour in the Long Room when hundreds of mainly older white men chanted,“Cheats, cheats, cheats” to Cummins’ team as they made their way to the dressing room.

The sight of Usman Khawaja, Australia’s first Muslim Test player, confronting multiple members and asking for their removal by attendants was jarring. Only days earlier, a landmark 317-page report from the Independent Commission for Equity in Cricket found English cricket to suffer from “widespread and deep-rooted” racism, class-based discrimination, elitism and sexism. The MCC has suspended three members pending an investigation into their behaviour.

The irony of MCC members decrying Australia’s conduct for playing within the laws their club wrote was not lost.

It would not be a difficult case to prosecute that many in the Long Room themselves had breached several conditions of the spirit of cricket, including respect, acceptance of the umpire’s decision and the exercising of self-discipline “even when things go against you”.

Did Australia breach the spirit of cricket?

The same allegation could be made against Stokes and McCullum, who were forthright in their belief Australia had contravened the spirit of cricket despite playing within the rules.

“If I was fielding captain I would have had a real think about the spirit of the game,” Stokes said. “For Australia, it was the match-winning moment. Would I want to win a game in that manner? The answer for me is no.”

Said McCullum: “I can’t imagine we’ll be having a beer with them any time soon.”

The problem with taking the moral high ground is you have to make sure your own house is in order. Stones and glass houses and all. England’s hypocrisy was soon exposed.

McCullum had been involved in several similar incidents in his career for NZ, including a run out in 2006 of Muttiah Muralitharan, who, mistakenly believing the ball was dead, had set off to congratulate teammate Kumar Sangakkara on his Test century.

McCullum used his 2016 MCC Spirit of Cricket Cowdrey Lecture to apologise to Sangakkara.

Vision also emerged of Bairstow effecting a similar stumping in a county game for Yorkshire against Nottinghamshire in 2014.

After waiting for Samir Patel to lift his backfoot, Bairstow whipped off the bails, earning the plaudits of the commentator for his quick thinking. Bairstow had no qualms with his actions. “It’s within the rules of the game and that’s how it is,” Bairstow said at the time.

England had appointed themselves as the arbiters of how the spirit of cricket should be invoked, and others had to play to that line.

Though prominent broadcaster Piers Morgan and England batting great Geoffrey Boycott condemned Australia, former England captains Andrew Strauss, Mike Atherton, Nasser Hussain and Eoin Morgan praised the visitors for punishing Bairstow’s “dozy” play. So, too, did Taylor.

“You don’t have to invoke the spirit of cricket just because someone has a brain fade moment,” Taylor said.

Taufel defended Australia against accusations they had breached the spirit, saying claims they had cheated were unwarranted. “Again, the spirit of cricket comes back to that central theme of respect,” Taufel said.

“When Australia walked up into that Long Room, and they were labelled as cheats by various members of the crowd – that’s a really confronting term to use in sport, isn’t it?” Taufel said.

“What did they [Australia] do that showed a lack of respect? To call someone a cheat when all they’ve done is apply the laws of the game – it’s pretty strong – and not necessarily deserved as well, I would have thought.”

Underarm and Mankad

The underarm incident of 1981 is one such moment where the spirit of cricket was almost universally accepted as being breached despite being permitted by the laws of the game.

With New Zealand needing six to tie, captain Australian Greg Chappell instructed his brother Trevor Chappell to deliver the ball underarm instead of overarm along the ground to tailender Brian McKechnie. The disapproval of Australian wicketkeeper Rod Marsh was obvious.

The 1981 underarm incident against New Zealand which sparked a storm.Credit: Age Archive

“I think none of us are comfortable with what happened that day because the whole match situation: six to tie, Brian McKechnie the batter – there were so many reasons why you didn’t need to do that,” Taylor said. “Even Greg today admits if he had his time back he wouldn’t have done it.”

The running out of the non-striker for backing up too far by the bowler before they deliver the ball, commonly referred to as the Mankad, is also a legal but contentious play, although the stigma is fading. India spin great Ravichandran Ashwin is a strong supporter of this mode of dismissal, which he enacted in a 2019 Indian Premier League match.

The onus is on the bowler to play within the spirit of cricket, yet it is the batter who is gaining an unfair advantage by leaving their ground too early. Taylor’s view, one shared by many current and former Australian players, is in line with the accepted convention that the bowler should warn the non-striker before running them out.

Taufel says the idea the batter should be warned is a “furphy”. “Sometimes we learn the laws, the rules and regulations the hard way,” Taufel said.

The spirit of cricket in action

Although the spirit of cricket is difficult to define, good sportsmanship is a central theme in all winners of the ICC’s Spirit of Cricket Award.

Last year, Nepal wicketkeeper Aasif Sheikh was recognised for choosing not to run out Ireland’s Andy McBrine after the batter had tripped over the bowler. In 2021, New Zealand’s Daryl Mitchell received the award for turning down a run at a key point of a Twenty20 World Cup semi-final against England, believing he had got in the way of Adil Rashid, who was attempting to field the ball. In both instances, neither player would have breached the Laws of Cricket if they had acted otherwise.

If Cummins had withdrawn the appeal with the Lord’s Test on the line, he and his Australians would have been a strong favourite for this year’s honour. Because he didn’t, it does not mean he contravened the spirit of cricket, just as neither Sheikh nor Mitchell would have if they had acted otherwise.

“I do struggle with the fact that if something’s allowable to happen under the laws of the game, and all I do is abide by those laws of the game, then you really can’t hang them out to dry under the spirit of cricket,” Taufel said.

“It really is in the eye of the beholder, but we’ve tried to create the general feel and perception of respect. How do we play the game? What’s right and what’s wrong?

“It’s really difficult for someone to say you can dismiss a batter this way, but that’s actually against the spirit of the game so we don’t want you to do that. That’s that’s a mixed message, and not something that we would ever want to promote.

“And it’s something that I’ve tried to explain with the Jonny Bairstow thing. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. If the laws allow you to be dismissed, well, don’t put yourself in that situation.”

Watch every ball of the 2023 Ashes series live and exclusive on Channel 9 and 9Now.

News, results and expert analysis from the weekend of sport sent every Monday. Sign up for our Sport newsletter.

Most Viewed in Sport

From our partners

Source: Read Full Article