^^ Agreed, Willy.
^ OK, Cyrille, whatever you say ;)
Printable View
^^ Agreed, Willy.
^ OK, Cyrille, whatever you say ;)
btw Stokes was superb today. His numbers over the last 12 months are excellent. He’s a match winner. When coming up with an 11 for the decade I guess Ponting was comparing Stokes with other possibilities for the role of allrounder.
Who else do you think comes close?
It was an interesting game in the Australian 20/20 BBL in Sydney last night.
Rain delayed the start and the Teams were reduced, initially to a 8 overs a side.
The Brisbane Heat have a potent batting line-up ... if they click. Well, last night, they clicked.
---
https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2020/01/1.ashx
Credit
Meet the new batting sensation from England ... Tom Banton.
In his first over the first ball went over square leg for a 6, the second ball hit square on the off-side for a 4, the third ball, an amazing shot, he hit a medium fast bowler in a reverse sweep for a 4.
Later, he smacked five 6's in one over on the way to the second fastest 50 in BBL history.
Eventually he holed out, but not before a scorching 56 from 19 deliveries.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWcLmuQJRdY
Meh. Please don't pollute this thread start a new basketball thread elsewhere.
Ponting's team was supposed to be team of the decade.
On current and recent form, Stokes is a walk in, but it's supposed to be based on players over the past ten years.
I'll get back to you on that.... there was a time when Shane Watson looked like he would develop into a great allrounder, but after a couple of promising years, he just didn't produce the goods on a consistent level.Quote:
Who else do you think comes close?
The bid for Warne's baggy green is currently at $315,500.
^ there was a time when he was opening the batting in both tests and ODI`s and averaging 50+ with the bat and 30`ish with the ball. My point is, he did not stand the test of time and proved to be a dud. Who is to say Stokes is not just having a purple patch that could also fizzle out? How long has been playing well for? Not that long, right?
Some fair points.
These best eleven selections are really just for chat, aren’t they.
Truth is most of us don’t watch much cricket that doesn’t involve our team.
Watson never had a year like 2019 for Ben Stokes.
[QUOTE][QUOTE]
Yup - and thats what I am doing
[QUOTE]True, but I generally know more about the English team than others, as they are out traditional old rivals. There are many talented sub con players that I know nothing about.Quote:
[Truth is most of us don’t watch much cricket that doesn’t involve our team.
.[//QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Maybe not, but he was looking good for a while there - then he kept on getting out after he reached 50 - quite often in his 90s. He ended up with a shitload of 50 plus scores, and only 2 test centuries. It screwed him mentally in the end, as he just lost his confidence and never got it back.Quote:
Watson never had a year like 2019 for Ben Stokes.[//QUOTE]
As I mentioned earlier in the thread James Faulkner was looking as though he was going to be our allrounder and played a few Stokes type innings, where he single handedly got the team over the line, but he just had that one purple patch before getting injured and never reaching his peak again.
Stuart Broad was also ear marked as a potential allrounder for England and he batted at 6 or 7 early in his career and made a few decent scores, before just becoming absolute crap with the bat and demoted to 11.
I will be honest and say I think Stokes will keep playing well for a while yet, and on current form he is the best allrounder in the world - but lets get back to this conversation a few years from now and see if keeps it up or not..
England struggling to take the last 5 wickets...half way through the last day. Are they likely to get 5 after tea?
10 maidens in a row with 2 lost wickets - pressure is building...
Two to go.
Stokes too good.
Great performance with the ball from Stokes as he steps up after old man Anderson breaks down again. No doubt, he is a special player.
South Africa have publicly stated that they support the push for test matches being changed to 4 day matches. Noooooooo!!!!! The ICC has stated that their concerns for players getting enough rest with so much cricket being played is behind the push, but we all know they will just schedule in more T20 matches with more days open on the schedule. This would be very bad for test cricket. The recent ashes matches would have been mostly draws if the 5th day wasn't there to be played. I will be really pissed off if they succeed in changing tests to 4 day matches ......
^ The lop sided games quite often do, but the good test matches, the type that make you love the game, quite often go into the 5th day.
Those good test matches will quite often result in a draw if they are shortened by one day.
It's a disgusting, greedy action from the ICC - and you can bet your life it has nothing to do with resting players, and all about more T20 $$$$.
How ever many it is it's always the disappointing ones.
So they'd be legislating for more disappointment. :D
The test just concluded would have been massively disappointing if on day three the South Africans had been faced with the possibility of either attacking and risking losing, or wasting time for the easy draw.
It also shows that the administrators hopes of making more money from 4 day tests is unfounded.
Would England fans be flying out in droves again for the next SA vs Eng test visit to Capetown after a day and half of two teams going through the motions in this one?
The bean counters need to resign themselves to the fact that cricket will never be solely like Premier League football.
Let them monkey around with limited overs cricket to their heart's content, but they need to accept that the game itself is a broad church.
Yes - let them monkey around with the shorter formats, just leave our test cricket alone!Quote:
Let them monkey around with limited overs cricket to their heart's content, but they need to accept that the game itself is a broad church.
Think about it. All of the demographics of the game would change as players would play a different game, as you have noted. You may as well just throw all of the records from 5 day tests away and start again, as the `old` stats would no longer be relevant.Quote:
The test just concluded would have been massively disappointing if at lunch on day three the South Africans had been faced with the possibility of either attacking and risking losing, or blocking for the easy draw.
For a while it looked like unlimited time tests would come back.
I'd be all in favour.
Also of teams heading out on tour on ships, and handkerchiefs as headgear.
Well here are some stats.
Now if that was hovering in the 20's I'd understand it, but yes, it makes no sense whatsoever.Quote:
More than three quarters (75.2 per cent) of Tests between 1975 and 1979 went into a fifth day, rising to 77.1 per cent in the 1980s. That figure has dropped to just 58.3 per cent this decade. After England's series against South Africa, just 52 per cent of Test matches in 2017 have gone to a fifth day.
^ still, I think those stats are more a reflection of the weaker sides such as Afghanistan, Bangladesh and even the once mighty West Indies putting up little fight most of the time. Those figures would be far different if they were for matches with the stronger teams playing each other - ie: South Africa, England, Australia.