The Ashes
-
-
@barbarian said in The Ashes:
@mn5 I just think that of all the English players, he is the best suited to our conditions. He was one of the best batsmen last time around, and it was in his debut tests IIRC.
I guess given what Cook and Root haven't achieved he couldn't do any worse but he doesn't have the most amazing batting stats. Definitely woulda done fuck all bowling wise as well.
-
Presumably Stokes would have played instead of Ball in the first test and he wouldn't have had to do that much to have done better (than Ball).
They'd really prised the door open in the first Australian innings and if they'd managed to get Shaun Marsh or Smith cheaply they might have run through the Aussies and grabbed a psychological advantage. Maybe Stokes could have been the man to do this.
OR he might not have got the wicket that Ball got - which just happens to be Warner...
-
Presumably Stokes would have played instead of Ball in the first test and he wouldn't have had to do that much to have done better (than Ball).
They'd really prised the door open in the first Australian innings and if they'd managed to get Shaun Marsh or Smith cheaply they might have run through the Aussies and grabbed a psychological advantage. Maybe Stokes could have been the man to do this.
OR he might not have got the wicket that Ball got - which just happens to be Warner...
It's Stokes not fucken 1981 Ian Botham. Let's have some perspective.
-
@MN5 did Stokes fuck your missus or something?
-
@no-quarter said in The Ashes:
@MN5 did Stokes fuck your missus or something?
Nope he's just yet another overrated all rounder that people think is God's gift
-
@no-quarter said in The Ashes:
@MN5 did Stokes fuck your missus or something?
Nope he's just yet another overrated all rounder that people think is God's gift
35 batting average with 6 tons, and 33 bowling average, is not too shabby. Similar to your boy Cairns. Given the relative quality of the English team he would have made a pretty big difference.
-
@no-quarter said in The Ashes:
@no-quarter said in The Ashes:
@MN5 did Stokes fuck your missus or something?
Nope he's just yet another overrated all rounder that people think is God's gift
35 batting average with 6 tons, and 33 bowling average, is not too shabby. Similar to your boy Cairns. Given the relative quality of the English team he would have made a pretty big difference.
Cairns was a way better bowler than Stokes. 218 wickets in 62 matches vs 95 in 39.
-
@no-quarter said in The Ashes:
@no-quarter said in The Ashes:
@MN5 did Stokes fuck your missus or something?
Nope he's just yet another overrated all rounder that people think is God's gift
35 batting average with 6 tons, and 33 bowling average, is not too shabby. Similar to your boy Cairns. Given the relative quality of the English team he would have made a pretty big difference.
Cairns was a way better bowler than Stokes. 218 wickets in 62 matches vs 95 in 39.
Yep, and Stokes has 6 tons in 39 tests compared to Cairns 5 in 62. So overall pretty similar, one slightly better with ball, the other slightly better with bat
-
@no-quarter said in The Ashes:
@no-quarter said in The Ashes:
@no-quarter said in The Ashes:
@MN5 did Stokes fuck your missus or something?
Nope he's just yet another overrated all rounder that people think is God's gift
35 batting average with 6 tons, and 33 bowling average, is not too shabby. Similar to your boy Cairns. Given the relative quality of the English team he would have made a pretty big difference.
Cairns was a way better bowler than Stokes. 218 wickets in 62 matches vs 95 in 39.
Yep, and Stokes has 6 tons in 39 tests compared to Cairns 5 in 62. So overall pretty similar, one slightly better with ball, the other slightly bettee with bat
Cairns way better with the ball, Stokes marginally better with the bat ( 3320 runs in 62 tests vs 2429 in 39 )
Cairns closer to 'Great' than Stokes overall.
-
-
@no-quarter it's partly because Stokes doesn't meet the criteria for MN5 to rate someone i.e. is big, black, and Chris Gayle.
Also because Stokes is a ranga with talent.
While @MN5 is just a ranga with a fetish for Chris Gayle.
-
@no-quarter it's partly because Stokes doesn't meet the criteria for MN5 to rate someone i.e. is big, black, and Chris Gayle.
Also because Stokes is a ranga with talent.
While @MN5 is just a ranga with a fetish for Chris Gayle.
It's nothing to do with ranganess, I'm a great Guptill fan.
I've also got fond memories of fiery Craig McDermott sending down thunderbolts.
You're just pissed off cos your most hated All rounder just got 181 and has booked his place at 6 for the next 50 years.
-
@no-quarter it's partly because Stokes doesn't meet the criteria for MN5 to rate someone i.e. is big, black, and Chris Gayle.
Also because Stokes is a ranga with talent.
While @MN5 is just a ranga with a fetish for Chris Gayle.
It's nothing to do with ranganess, I'm a great Guptill fan.
I've also got fond memories of fiery Craig McDermott sending down thunderbolts.
You're just pissed off cos your most hated All rounder just got 181 and has booked his place at 6 for the next 50 years.
@NTA ooohh burn..
-
Presumably Stokes would have played instead of Ball in the first test and he wouldn't have had to do that much to have done better (than Ball).
They'd really prised the door open in the first Australian innings and if they'd managed to get Shaun Marsh or Smith cheaply they might have run through the Aussies and grabbed a psychological advantage. Maybe Stokes could have been the man to do this.
It's Stokes not fucken 1981 Ian Botham. Let's have some perspective.
OR he might not have got the wicket that Ball got - which just happens to be Warner...
That looks like quite a bit of perspective to me. What are you looking for?
They frankly could have played me instead of Ball and they'd have not been too much worse off.
-
-
Presumably Stokes would have played instead of Ball in the first test and he wouldn't have had to do that much to have done better (than Ball).
They'd really prised the door open in the first Australian innings and if they'd managed to get Shaun Marsh or Smith cheaply they might have run through the Aussies and grabbed a psychological advantage. Maybe Stokes could have been the man to do this.
It's Stokes not fucken 1981 Ian Botham. Let's have some perspective.
OR he might not have got the wicket that Ball got - which just happens to be Warner...
That looks like quite a bit of perspective to me. What are you looking for?
They frankly could have played me instead of Ball and they'd have not been too much worse off.
Or if my aunt had a dick she'd be my uncle.
This conversation is getting ridiculous.
-
Stokes is one of those players that defy their stats. He's not a brilliant bowler and he's not a consistent batsman, however he can alter the course of a game in both disciplines. He has a knack of taking an important wicket when things are turning to custard and he is one hell of a destructive batsman when he's on song and has had some innings that have defined a match.
He's a guy that could really have made a difference in probably one to two games but he's not a Botham that is likely to define a whole series.
We have other problems than just missing the Ginga.
