Watching the moral victors show their true form is one of life's great joys.......
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 9 - Indigenous Round - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Test Pakistan v England (3 Test Matches)
- Thread starter MJG14
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- May 5, 2016
- 46,022
- 51,553
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Pope has no footwork - credit to him for that sweeping exhibition in the first test in India but he refuses to get to the pitch of the ball. I’ve seen Brook do it on the front foot but he only seems to want to do it when the pitch isn’t turning a lot. I’ll reserve judgement on him yet because it’s only been the two tests - he missed the India series. His play off the back foot to those straight ones has been terrible
Stokes is just abysmal at the moment. He looks a complete mess.
They also seem to forget that you can use your feet to hit singles. By all means, aim to use your feet to attack. But if you don’t get the ball you want, nudge one away for one
Plugger35
Umpiring Expert
- Sep 27, 2008
- 139,970
- 162,455
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- Chelsea, Black Caps, Sea Eagles, Subiaco
10 wickets for Sajid Khan, we could do with him in Pune right now.
- Nov 25, 2017
- 12,534
- 11,296
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
Congratulations to Dizzy on his first series win as Pakistan match day strategist.
- Thread starter
- #457
England destroyed by 2 guys who didn't play the first Test.
Sajid and Noman pick up 39 out of 40 possible wickets between them. Zahid Mahmood prevented it from being all 40 unfortunately!
Sajid and Noman pick up 39 out of 40 possible wickets between them. Zahid Mahmood prevented it from being all 40 unfortunately!
Which is probably why he would still be penciled in for next Ashes.
- Nov 25, 2011
- 2,295
- 1,383
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- West Perth, Spurs, Oilers, Twins
What have they won since Spudball actually started.
Anything 1 series win on the road against Pakistan 2 years the rest have been draws or losses.
Ganging up on West Indies and Sri Lanka at home.
Sri Lanka still beat them in a test a month or so ago.
sabso
Not Australian
Pope was a better captain as well.
hawkman
Hall of Famer
Debatable that Pope is a better bat than Stokes though
Bazball is nothing but hype. They think they invented attacking cricket, Australia has been playing like that for quarter of a century.
They are frauds who have drunk their own bathwater and are utterly in love with themselves.
When they don't have the Duke ball and 59 metre boundaries they are same old England....Always losing.
On SM-S908E using BigFooty.com mobile app
- Sep 8, 2014
- 17,431
- 24,973
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- There are no other teams
Suck shit you “Spaz Ball” moral campaigners.
- May 5, 2016
- 46,022
- 51,553
- AFL Club
- Geelong
I’m not sure. He looks like a man to me who is batting very confused at the moment like he doesn’t know what to be. Pre-Bazzball he actually batted with more freedom than just about anyone in that team BUT, he was also capable of he had to of really defending like his life depended on it and he could focus so hard. His mind looks so scrambled right now
Rabish Binney
Left out overnight
100% this.
They’ve never heard of Sobers; Stackpole; Roy Fredericks; Greenidge; Haynes; Ian Chappell; Richie Richardson; the great Viv; Hayden; Gilchrist etc.
Too many others to mention.
They are a joke.
Phat Stats don't lie
107 tests thats a big body of work with only a test batting average of 35 .....good player yes but not a great one
His stats are basically the same as Shane Watson who after 59 tests batting ave is the same 35...watto with the ball 75 poles at 33...stokesy 200 poles ave 32 ..so its basically the same based upon the amount of tests
and we wouldn't all call watto a great of the game ...good player same as stokes but not great
and who is the better at ODI cricket?....watto ave 40 with the bat close to 6000 ODI runs 168 poles at 31
stokes ave 41 just over 3000 runs...74 wickets at 42
...yes watto played more ODI games ...but based on that watto the better white ball playeryou can make the argument that one is overrated and the other unders....
Last edited:
- May 5, 2016
- 46,022
- 51,553
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Phat Stats don't lie
107 tests thats a big body of work with only a test batting average of 35 .....good player yes but not a great one
His stats are basically the same as Shane Watson who after 59 tests batting ave is the same 35...watto with the ball 75 poles at 33...stokesy 200 poles ave 32 ..so its basically the same based upon the amount of tests
and we wouldn't all call watto a great of the game ...good player same as stokes but not great
and who is the better at ODI cricket?....watto ave 40 with the bat close to 6000 ODI runs 168 poles at 31
stokes ave 41 just over 3000 runs...74 wickets at 42
you can make the argument that one is overrated and the other unders....
Watson was a tremendous one day player. You would never ever hear me argue otherwise. Absolutely sensational player in the coloured clothes.
For much of his career I would have argued that stokes was the definition of a player who’s numbers did not do anywhere near justice to the value he brought to his team and I stand by that for the period up until a couple of years ago especially when he could still bowl at full capacity because he bowled spells that other bowlers didn’t want to bowl and as much as I genuinely believe Watson was a truly skilful bowler, his body simply wouldn’t allow him to do it on a consistent basis. So it’s hard to wrap him for such a small sample size. Stokes was a proper extra bowler and was doing donkey work and if you have a bowler who’s average is just above 30 and who’s average is above 38 - which I think it was from memory after that analysis I did the other day, who is hitting regular hundreds, and who is playing with such ferocity and turning matches - you have a player that is of such value that it is just amazing.
Sadly for him, it’s just disappeared. He’s at a total crossroads to the point where I genuinely believe he would almost be better off going back to county cricket for a while
Stokes reminds me of something Greg Chappell wrote in one of his books about Kim Hughes.Phat Stats don't lie
107 tests thats a big body of work with only a test batting average of 35 .....good player yes but not a great one
His stats are basically the same as Shane Watson who after 59 tests batting ave is the same 35...watto with the ball 75 poles at 33...stokesy 200 poles ave 32 ..so its basically the same based upon the amount of tests
and we wouldn't all call watto a great of the game ...good player same as stokes but not great
and who is the better at ODI cricket?....watto ave 40 with the bat close to 6000 ODI runs 168 poles at 31
stokes ave 41 just over 3000 runs...74 wickets at 42
you can make the argument that one is overrated and the other unders....
"He's not a great player, but he's capable of playing a great innings".
And no, I'm not comparing Hughes to Stokes.
Love him or hate him, Stokes has played some extraordinary knocks in big games.
I for one was never quite confident of a win whilst he was still at the crease.
- May 5, 2016
- 46,022
- 51,553
- AFL Club
- Geelong
They don’t, though.
And no, Australia haven’t been playing like this.
This is a myth. Plenty of teams have had little patches of playing briefly where they might throw the bat but you can throw any qualification method you like into statsguru and you will not find anything that equals what England have done under McCullum.
When will people just accept this?
Disagree with its value all you want, that’s fine, it’s obviously up for debate in terms of merit. But what is not up for debate is whether other teams have attempted it.
We keep hearing that ‘this player has done it and this player has done it and this player has done it.’
The truth is that basically no, they havent.
Virender Sehwag DIDNT have a better strike rate than Ben Duckett. It was four runs per hundred balls worse.
Few other batsmen of openers compare with Duckett’s strike rate of 87, or have Crawley’s strike rate under stokes of 75. Warner didn’t. His strike rate is 70.
Few have Harry Brook’s strike rate of 88.
For context, Adam Gilchrist’s was 81.
It HASNT been done before.
Teams have played positive cricket before. Yes. That is undeniable. Australia and the West Indies have both done it. South Africa also to a point. But not to this extent and their run rate reflects this. It cannot be debated. The success of it can.
- May 5, 2016
- 46,022
- 51,553
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Hell even Joe Root’s strike rate under Stoke’s is a shade under 70 and people are claiming that ‘Australia did this before.’
Jamie Smith - strike rate is higher than David Warner: 72 after 11 tests.
But Australia have done this before.
Jamie Smith - strike rate is higher than David Warner: 72 after 11 tests.
But Australia have done this before.
Bradesmaen
TheBrownDog
The stats are funny.
Harry Brook top the charts at 373 runs with 317 in one innings and 56 combined in the other 4.
Harry Brook top the charts at 373 runs with 317 in one innings and 56 combined in the other 4.
Bradesmaen
TheBrownDog
They did it before, people are right. They played attacking cricket without throwing their wicket away however. For someone who spends all his day in this forum you really know nothing.Hell even Joe Root’s strike rate under Stoke’s is a shade under 70 and people are claiming that ‘Australia did this before.’
Jamie Smith - strike rate is higher than David Warner: 72 after 11 tests.
But Australia have done this before.
Bazball is an extension of attacking cricket that is higher risk. Australia played attacking cricket but at a lower risk than Bazball. Simple. But you know according to you Australia are satan incarnate and have never done anything worthwhile.
Similar threads
