The Stokes-Starc Drama

We have just witnessed one of the real oddities of the game of cricket. 

In case you missed it:

• Kiwi-Englishman Ben Stokes hit the ball straight back to the bowler, the reputably aggressive Mitchell Starc
• Starc hurled it back at breakneck speed attempting to smash the wickets and remove Stokes baseball style
• Stokes stuck his hand out to block the throw and was subsequently dismissed for 'obstructing the field'

© foxsports.com.au

And now the cricketing world has blown up, a plethora of debate erupted from one ball of madness.

Question: Is it moral?

This topic is entirely subjective and farms out cricketing hypocrites like anything. The subject of 'gentlemen's game' and 'doing the right thing' is a red herring, even the cleanest outfit in the world has dirty laundry. The team in question is of course our humble Black Caps, remember the incident where McCullum ran out Muralitharan even though the universe knew he wasn't after a single? Now here he is on his high horse crying foul.

The Irish-Englishman captain in question has also taken the tall and mighty ground claiming he would have "withdrawn the appeal". Rubbish. I don't agree with Australians often, but George Bailey was bang on in calling this "a big thing to say". The poms are some of the worst when it comes to sporting behavior and moral standards on the field, the likes of Swann and Anderson are disgraceful.

They, and just about every other cricketing nation, has absolutely no grounds to call the card of "Blasphemy!  We would never do that!".

Question: Who do we blame?

There wouldn't be a debate if there wasn't somebody to point fingers at.

Suspect #1: Mitchell Starc. A bowler trying to destroy the stumps while fielding a return ball is commonplace. It could be a genuine attempt to run out the player, a cheap tactic to intimidate the batsman, or a dirty attempt to actually hit the batsmen. Usually only the Australians venture into the bottom end of the scale, as seen even by Starc himself taking aim at Kieron Pollard. *However* in this case I believe Starc was taking a legitimate shot at the stumps when the batsman was outside his crease. He was not trying to hit Stokes, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. 

Verdict: Not Guilty. 

Suspect #2: Ben Stokes. It is illegal to obstruct the ball from a fielders attempt at the stumps, he knew it and anyone with a reasonable eye on the game also knows it. However a look at the replays very clearly shows that this was all about self-preservation. He was genuinely concerned he was about to wear a leather red cricket ball coming at 200kph on his face, and stuck his hand out based on pure instinct and reflex. He was *not* trying to cheat and prevent his own run out. 

Verdict: Not Guilty. 

Suspect #3: The Rules. 

There is surprisingly a piece in the laws of cricket that captures the crux of this problem, self-preservation. 

Law 37 describes the following three circumstances where this applies, but the law is not limited to these circumstances. If, after completing the act of playing the ball, the batsmen willfully strikes the ball with a hand not holding the bat, unless this is in order to avoid injury, or any other part of his person or with his bat

This is a clear cut case of Stokes valuing his head (literally).

Verdict: Not Guilty.

This leaves one remaining culprit...

Suspect #4: The Umpires.
It went upstairs to be looked at, so the on-field umpires did the right thing here and called on the appropriate authority. They took the heat off themselves and avoided a rash and hurried decision. The third umpire then had the benefit of slow motion replays, interpreted the laws in a subjective and opinionated manner, and then sent Stokes on his way. In his eyes there would have been reasonable doubt either way, and in my opinion neither Starc nor Stokes were guilty... hence how can I fault the third umpire for taking a stance he had to make?
Verdict: Not Guilty. 

... Then who is guilty?

The answer is, nobody. And that is what makes any sport interesting.

The uncertainties and the debate are the life of the game. There isn't any right or wrong answer and it can be argued to death in every way. If it was possible to apply a mechanical decision on everything how boring would that be?

Truth is, the best we can all do is take a stance, have an enjoyably loud argument about it, and then get on with the rest of this fascinating series. 

World Cup 2015 - Aus vs NZ, Match of the Tournament?

Forget the famous India vs Pakistan rivalry for a moment.

Forget the Ashes, England have descended back into the 90s and don't look like coming out.

If we are talking cricketing rivalries, surely Australia vs New Zealand is now the most anticipated match up in world cricket.  This match was no exception.

Consider:

• Both teams are co-hosts and equally red hot favorites to win
• It was 23 years ago at this very venue when Martin Crowe's men stunned Australia
• The Trans-Tasman rivalry has been shelved in favor of the "big three" playing each other endlessly, we are deprived of Chappell-Hadlee battles.

The entire nation was humming, four million cricket nuts pumped and ready to dream big, boo David Warner and outplay the Aussies back over the ditch. For once we actually had eleven players capable of the feat, but even so it was an incredibly tough game to pick as both sides are extremely similar. Madness at the top, class in the middle, terrific bowling & fielding and a bloody mindedness to win at all costs.

Have we become a warm friendly version of the win hungry-Aussies, is little brother now an identical twin?


The match was arguably the most extraordinary world cup game of all time (top three at least). It was one of those rare surreal experiences in sport where the contest is so much more than just a bunch of guys on TV bashing a ball around with sticks. The history, the context, the emotion were all brewed in a perfect cocktail of cricket.

Like any truly memorable game the match swung like Wasim Akram in-swingers on grass:

1. Southee Nails Finch - Those first few overs were Zaheer Khan 2003 territory, a nervous wreck spraying the ball everywhere and runs leaking like a sieve. Was Australia going to repeat the 359-2?  Southee cleaning out Finch squashed that theory quick fast and got a nation of 4 million sighing with relief.

2. The Old Pro - The bespectacled king finally has the luxury of an actual bowling attack to work his magic around. His spell changed everything as no Aussie managed to make anything of his seemingly innocuous but unplayable balls. They tried to hit him out and that's when the rot began.

3. Thunderboults - Boult brought back the forgotten art of bowling *at the stumps*, hurrying the new batsman with raw pace and subtle movement and cleaning up the woodwork. A massive upgrade from the English and Indian attacks, maybe that's why Australia avoids us?

4. Greatness is Contagious - The first thing I thought of during the build up advertisement was "I can't wait for McCullum to actually face Johnson". I couldn't have asked for more, BMac was on a mission and he clouted fours and sixes with disdain, bulging left arm or not! Johnson tried to target this smashed arm and even then got pulled away to the fence, now that's raw Kiwi guts.

5. Beware The Wounded Aussie - I warned my fellow couch potatoes that there was a time Shane Bond destroyed Australia only to have Brett Lee issue the same treatment on us for a ridiculous comeback win.  You never discount Australia, and this time Haddin played Bevan and Starc played Lee, a demonic spell that had all of New Zealand wincing and covering their faces.

6. The Final Say - Kane Williamson, our only real class batsman. McCullum is great when he comes off but that won't be all the time, the rest of the batting is a scratchy awful mess in their first few overs especially when facing genuine speed. We wouldn't have reached 100 without The Next Crowe guiding us, remember that.

So what have we learnt?

The Cricket World Cup 2015 is alive and well and so far perhaps the best tournament yet. The 50 over game is truly the 'alternative' from to tests and T20 cricket and it's brand of big bats and small boundaries doesn't promote the arts of proper batting technique, hunting 2s and 3s instead of jogging singles, and scrambling in the field to save 20-30 runs per innings. This is how cricket should be played, all three facets with equal importance.

Secondly, genuine fast bowling is nothing without accuracy, Boult and Starc are fine examples of how it's done and gave us a timely reminder of the lost thrill of cricket stumps in genuine danger.

Now one can only hope for a rematch, if it does happen it will be semi-final or better still the grand final.


But a warning to the Black Caps, Australia will not be this sloppy next time.