The Cricket Thread

Archibald&Crooks

Aegina Expat
Admin
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
44,654
Honest question. Do you think it would have made a difference to the test team? Someone would have had to make way for him, so I'm guessing it would have been Malan?
Stokes would be the first name on the team sheet after Root I would have thought. He would have offered some steel you missed, and that bit of mongrel that was lacking. The first couple of tests were in the balance at times, would have been interesting with him there.
I think England made a very poor call on this one. Innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.
I think it could have easily made a massive difference but we'll never know :(

I mean, he could have turned out to have played as crap as the rest of them :D
 

mpickard2087

Fantastic Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2008
Messages
19,153
It is a bit bizarre. Not charged = cant play. Is charged = he can play. I can understand why he was immediately suspended, but I don't see how, given the stance they took, the situation has got better and allows him to return to the team..... Unless sporting reasons have taken over, and they're desperate after the Ashes.
 

alfie103

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2005
Messages
3,001
Honest question. Do you think it would have made a difference to the test team? Someone would have had to make way for him, so I'm guessing it would have been Malan?
Stokes would be the first name on the team sheet after Root I would have thought. He would have offered some steel you missed, and that bit of mongrel that was lacking. The first couple of tests were in the balance at times, would have been interesting with him there.
I think England made a very poor call on this one. Innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.
Well he would have helped no doubt but I don't think he would have single handedly won us the series. His bowling can be brilliant and he does bowl at the high 80s but I feel his bowling does blow hot and cold and he could have smacked around and I don't think he is quick enough to make the aussie batsmen really uncomfortable.

To be fair, I don't think the ECB could have included him in the squad after that video came out. That put the nail in the coffin for stokes playing in the ashes.
 

Arnoldtoo

The thinking ape's ape
Joined
May 18, 2006
Messages
20,675
Honest question. Do you think it would have made a difference to the test team? Someone would have had to make way for him, so I'm guessing it would have been Malan?
Stokes would be the first name on the team sheet after Root I would have thought. He would have offered some steel you missed, and that bit of mongrel that was lacking. The first couple of tests were in the balance at times, would have been interesting with him there.
I think England made a very poor call on this one. Innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.
I think it's pretty obvious that we would have won with Stokes in the team.

Given how close it was without him.

:shifty:
 

Japhet

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2010
Messages
6,265
It is a bit bizarre. Not charged = cant play. Is charged = he can play. I can understand why he was immediately suspended, but I don't see how, given the stance they took, the situation has got better and allows him to return to the team..... Unless sporting reasons have taken over, and they're desperate after the Ashes.
I think you've answered your own question.
 

Arnoldtoo

The thinking ape's ape
Joined
May 18, 2006
Messages
20,675
If Stokes is found guilty and fined, then how long would his ban from the England cricket team be? A year?

If he's already been banned for, let's say, a year because they had made him unavailable for selection until the result of the trial, do they then let him straight back in?

Given that the conclusion of the trial is likely to be six months or more away, on what basis do they continue the current ban?

The original decision to ban him may have been wrong - though they'd have got plenty of stick if they hadn't - but I can see the sense of now making him available until such times as we know the legal judgement on the circumstances and the severity of any crime that might have been committed.
 

aussiespursguy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
1,086
Well I'm no expert, but it seems to me you'd do better if you scored more runs.

You seemed to have got the hang of it in the Tests!
We played a very attacking team today, and apart from Finchie, nobody took it to the English bowlers. And why the fuck Nathan Lyon isn't playing is beyond me. The only positive from today was Alex Carey, young local lad from Adelaide who has a great future.
 

aussiespursguy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
1,086
Much better start by Australia. Really important to stifle England during the power play. Still not convinced by White batting 3 for us though.
 

aussiespursguy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
1,086
That pisses me off. Smith was clearly not out. Great effort from Buttler but you can see he snatched it, and didn't get his gloves under. Having said that, he would not have known, from wearing the gloves. Such an important call in the context of the game. :mad:
 

dickieven

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
1,071
That pisses me off. Smith was clearly not out. Great effort from Buttler but you can see he snatched it, and didn't get his gloves under. Having said that, he would not have known, from wearing the gloves. Such an important call in the context of the game. :mad:
That is the trouble with the soft signal. It is so difficult to overturn as need to be 100%. No way you could be 100% on that.

Anyway big wicket. Come on England!
 
Top