The Ashes
-
@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.
-
Yeah but would Stokesy send up a couple of hookers to your hotel room to pay you off for throwing a game?
-
@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.
-
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.
Yeah - you and I are up to four posts -my two have been pretty good, but I'm inclined to agree with you!
-
@catogrande said in The Ashes:
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
Or putting enough pressure on for someone else to ramp up their own stats.
-
@catogrande said in The Ashes:
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
Or putting enough pressure on for someone else to ramp up their own stats.
Also like Flintoff, Cairns and most all rounders they generally try not to bowl them at the tail if they can help it for injuries/workload etc - she misses out on buying wickets at 10 runs against the Winidies tail many times.
-
The more I think about this series, the more I'm disappointed by it.
When was the last time we had a live series on Aussie soil? A series with twists and turns, where both teams enter the final day with an equal chance of victory. Where champions stand up in big moments, and we talk about the outcome for years.
More broadly, when has that happened anywhere at all? India/Australia earlier this year was notable by it's competitiveness - a series where both sides are evenly matched. This series, and 90% of others, pale in comparison. I rushed home from work to watch that series, while in this one I forget when the game starts and generally turn on midway through the first session and glance at the score as I go about my day.
The Ashes has become a series that's played in England. 2010/11 was an outlier, and it may well be another 20-30 years before it happens again. This isn't a great Australian side, but they have rolled through England yet again and 5-0 is on the cards. If that happens, since 06/07 the series score in Australia is 16-3. Fuck me dead.
Now we go into our two most famous tests, and once again nothing is on the line. They will be eclipsed by the Big Bash. Again.
I genuinely enjoyed the last two 5-0 series, because I felt our side had something to prove after a few famous defeats. This one doesn't do anything for me. It's nice to win but there was no fist pump moment when we took the last wicket. I don't even have the energy to needle my English mates on Facebook.
I'm already counting down to 2019. At least that might be a competitive series. Or the next time we tour South Africa.
