England should stop whining about the 'spirit of cricket'

The needless controversy in the second Ashes Test is the result of England's selective use of the moral high ground

- Sumit Chakraberty

England's wicketkeeper-batsman Jonny Bairstow ducked under a bouncer in the last ball of the over, tapped his bat within the crease, and set off to chat with his non-striker partner, without bothering to look behind. Bairstow's Australian counterpart Alex Carey flicked the ball back and stumped the careless Englishman.

That was a decisive moment in England losing the second Test by 43 runs to go 0-2 down in the ongoing Ashes series on Sunday. Under Law 20.1.2 of cricket, there was no ambiguity in Bairstow's dismissal. But England skipper Ben Stokes said in a postmatch conference that he would not have wanted to win a game in this manner.

When a journalist pointed out that Bairstow had himself attempted to run out David Warner of Australia in a similar manner, Stokes wanted to know if that was in the last ball of the over. When the journalist countered by asking if it mattered which ball of the over such an attempt was made, Stokes maintained that it made all the difference because it's customary to leave the crease after an over to walk across for a chat with the non-striker.

The fundamental problem with this position is of Stokes assuming a moral high ground as a self-appointed arbiter of what is in the "spirit of cricket" and what is not. To many others, Bairstow trying to catch a batsman unawares when he steps out of the crease in the middle of an over is no different from Carey making Bairstow pay for presuming the over has ended and ball is dead.