Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

Alviro Patterson wrote:...Too much fuss made about the lockergate incident, anyone who has played cricket at any level will realise it's a psychologically challenging sport and the odd flared temper is half expected. As long as it's not directed at a person or causes criminal damage then it shouldn't be an issue.

Of course, but I'd also remove one's future career from the list of targets.

92 runs followed by 101. Well played . Now take a 6 fer

I forgot we had a thread dedicated to England's next future all-rounder.

Aidan11 wrote:I forgot we had a thread dedicated to England's next future all-rounder.

All rounder? Batter and professional fielder.....

Handy if his team mates could take his edges.

Arthur Crabtree wrote:Handy if his team mates could take his edges.

Indeed. 1/105 would have been a passable return then.....

In all seriousness, Stokes looks very far from being a test match bowler at the moment. The batter is guaranteed at least one buffet ball an over, he doesnt create pressure, lacks control.

Better hope he can still bat like this for a while

I don't think Stokes could be picked as a bowler, but he's got a lot going for him. He's a hell of a bowler for a batter. It's tough to keep him on at 5rpo. Cook (maybe) should just give him wicket taking fields and live with the runs. He's had a lot of edges fly through the slips as Steely has tried to deal with the cost of the wickets.

Arthur Crabtree wrote:I don't think Stokes could be picked as a bowler, but he's got a lot going for him. He's a hell of a bowler for a batter. It's tough to keep him on at 5rpo. Cook (maybe) should just give him wicket taking fields and live with the runs. He's had a lot of edges fly through the slips as Steely has tried to deal with the cost of the wickets.

If we needed a batter who can bowl, is Ali not the better of the two though? Long term, I just dont see the use of Stokes. He isnt a batter, not a top 6, and if he cant bowl in tests we in essence are picking probably the 40th best batter we could.

Lets not forget, this surface at Lords combined with an outfield that is very quick has produced a test where no batter should have concerns. His only other score of note was a classic "series over/Mark Butcher's now Bradman" Ashes effort that we have seen many a time.

Can anyone tell me he is a test match 6? Or looks good enough with the ball to be a reliable striker?

Maybe I am harsh, but he just doesnt convince me.

He looks a good batter to me, in terms of the shots he plays. The question is (apart from how he will do in UAE etc) is what his match-head is like. How adaptable he is. Whether he can concentrate. If he can bat for a long time on a hot dday in Colombo...

That ton in Australia wasn't even a dead rubber. And it was in a series where most of the England batters were at least a bit scared of the ball.

And I like a player who is just a matchwinner. I can find a spot for mercurial talent in my side.

Moeen is England's best spinner. If not, leave him out.

Arthur Crabtree wrote:That ton in Australia wasn't even a dead rubber. And it was in a series where most of the England batters were at least a bit scared of the ball.

Chasing 504, being reduced to 120-5, with ages left and being 2-0 down..... I think we can safely say that when Stokes came into bat, the series was over.

And I like a player who is just a matchwinner. I can find a spot for mercurial talent in my side.

Assuming the likeliest possibility tomorrow is England dont win, have England won a match on the back of a Stokes performance? His only other century, as pointed out, was the dying breathes of a crushing, and his only 5 wicket haul came at the end of another hammering.

In the last two England tests we have lost mind, he has bagged a pair in one, and gone for over 7 an over with the ball in the other....

sussexpob wrote:

Arthur Crabtree wrote:That ton in Australia wasn't even a dead rubber. And it was in a series where most of the England batters were at least a bit scared of the ball.

Chasing 504, being reduced to 120-5, with ages left and being 2-0 down..... I think we can safely say that when Stokes came into bat, the series was over.

A draw was possible. Though admittedly, they made no attempt to draw. A draw would have kept the Ashes alive.

sussexpob wrote:

And I like a player who is just a matchwinner. I can find a spot for mercurial talent in my side.

Assuming the likeliest possibility tomorrow is England dont win, have England won a match on the back of a Stokes performance? His only other century, as pointed out, was the dying breathes of a crushing, and his only 5 wicket haul came at the end of another hammering.

Any chance England have of winning this game was made possible by Stokes' innings. It brought a win into view. Otherwise, a draw was the best they could do. That was the kind of effect KP had on results.

Arthur Crabtree wrote:

sussexpob wrote:

And I like a player who is just a matchwinner. I can find a spot for mercurial talent in my side.

Assuming the likeliest possibility tomorrow is England dont win, have England won a match on the back of a Stokes performance? His only other century, as pointed out, was the dying breathes of a crushing, and his only 5 wicket haul came at the end of another hammering.

Any chance England have of winning this game was made possible by Stokes' innings. It brought a win into view. Otherwise, a draw was the best they could do. That was the kind of effect KP had on results.

Or went a ways to neutralise his absolutely terrible effort with the ball.