I agree. The umpire is getting some stick for the decision, but the technology looks like it has failed to get the right decision on that occasion(and I think if you look back through the series, there may be a few more too).
Its a decent bowling attack but its very much a case of 3 identikit seamers and a decent spinner. They certainly aren't anywhere near as good as Australian attacks of the past. better than their last few tours, I'll give you though. I thought they bowled really poorly and if you look back at many of the wickets in our second innings, they were still gifted. Statistically, it goes to prove that an better than average bowler now with so many poor batsmen lacking technique and mental grit, indeed, with a worldwide lack of truly great batsmen, is going to have a better average and strike rate than used to be the case in years gone by. The bowlers you mentioned were genuine greats and could bowl teams out on their own, and still get wickets when pitches were pancakes (and of course there was much less cricket played in those times). And he's still very early in his career with just 111 wickets in 23 tests. At mid 26 as a genuine quick, he might not have that many years left in him either and I do think he's had a fair few injury problems already.
Just been reading into the Stokes "phantom" LBW, and the experts have all but confirmed that DRS did indeed get it wrong. Apparently, DRS has took the flick off the front pad as spin, which is a known limitation with the technology. They have re-analysed it, taking the "flick" out of the equation it it would have missed the stumps completely. That is worrying. If they know that the technology has that limitation, then they should have something in place to change it on the fly. Stokes could have been wrongly dismissed by the technology that is supposed to eradicate poor decisions, should the Aussies have not foolishly(some would say arrogantly) have wasted their review on the obvious "not out" decision you will see. I really feel sorry for the umpire now. He's been hung out to dry over the decision and it's more or less proved he was right.
That's really interesting, where did you see that? Btw I don't think their wasted review was arrogant, it was desperate.
My comment was in the context of a discussion based on umpires leaning towards a side with no reviews left.it might only have been hawkeye givng it, however hawkeye is the arbiter in the review system. Had it been given out England's review would have been unsuccessful.
Opening bowlers, you know, those that are there purely for their bowling ability are expected to bowl front-line batsmen out. Someone like stokes who comes in at 4 or 5 and perhaps scores 50, 80, 100 + cannot be expected to open the bowling: this is not how the "all-rounder works. They are there as first change. After being an avid and devoted cricket fan and having watched england home and away many times over the last 35 years i can assure you that my opinion is not based on one innings: it would be nonsense to do so. I make my judgement on fact and that fact is that he has an exceptional average for an all-rounder, better than many considered to have been 'greats'.
Seriously. Step away and leave it. Please understand, any words you share, and the opinions you offer are not fact. They are your perception. Your perception is not fact. My view is made. You can't say anything I either don't know, haven't considered or haven't witnessed. My perception is made at this point in time and will only be shaped by what I see in his next 20 tests. If he starts to average 50 and starts getting good batsmen out instead of flakey shots lower down the order, I'll reassess. But as of now, he's had one impactful innings in 101. Persistently offering others views alongside your own isn't going to change my mind. Until his average massively improves, until he starts getting good players out with good balls, he's not a good allrounder. So can we draw a line there, you go and believe he's however good you want him to be in your mind, and I'll be content considering him to be a moderate player who lets us down more than he benefits us.
He's produced many watch winning performances (have a look at his career) and he has a highest test score of 258: it's an opinion that is based overwhelmingly on factual statistics
Its almost like arguing with a leave voter, doesn’t matter how many stats are produced they refuse to admit that there just could have been a slight possibility that they might have been hasty* / wrong* / misguided* / pig headed* * delete as appropriate
Mind boggling. That I've told you nothing will change my mind that he's failed in most of his 101 innings. Factually correct, no? That he's a below average bowler who more often intensifies pressure on his own team than transfer to the opposition. and the vast majority of his innings, he gets out cheaply or at a crucial time to a poor ball, and very rarely a good one. First innings is a prime example. Team under massive pressure, collapsing in ideal batting conditions, and he stretches and gets out. But anyway, your mind is made up on one innings. My mind is made up of something else. Good night, god bless, seeing as you cant respect my views, I'll choose not to see yours anymore.
I enjoy a debate and even if i don't agree i can see certain valid points within people's arguments. I'm sincerely hoping this blokes on a wind-up, if not he's working from an extremely peculiar agenda.
I'm enjoying this thread. Sachin Tendulkar, 329 innings, 68 x 50s, 51 x100, 6 x 200. Statistically he failed 2 innings in 3. Just throwing it out there.
On average, Ben Stokes has scored a 50 every 3 matches in test cricket. Just about all batsmen score low scores more often than high scores. Even Steve Smith, widely regarded as the best batsman in the world, needs 2.6 matches to score a 50. He's got a higher conversion rate from 50 to 100, but he bats high up. Ben Stokes often bats with the tail, which means he has to take more risks, as he did on Sunday. He's an outstanding cricketer, a first name on the team sheet player and a future captain, in my opinion of course.
