toffeejack
Player Valuation: £100m
Jeez rashid didn't have time to bowl in either innings nor bat ha
Cricket
- Thread starter summerisle
- Start date
Chris O'Connor
Player Valuation: £35m
They say home is where the heart is and that's certainly the way of it in test cricket today.
Take two top level sides, roughly equal in strength, playing a four or five test series, and whoever is hosting, one-sided cricket beckons. This is a growing phenomenon and is emblematic of a fundamental shift in the nature of test cricket, it is the story of test matches this decade, and which once more threatens to be played out during India’s series in England.
Play on a cloudy day at Trent Bridge, or a sweltering one in Kolkata, and the essence of the contest is inverted. Pace and bounce in the Brisbane heat does similarly for Australia.
In the past 10 Tests that Australia, England and India have played against each other, home and away, Australia have won 15 at home, but only three away. England have won 15 at home and just two away. India have won 13 at home, and a meagre two away.
One sided test series are now emblematic of a fundamental shift in the nature of home advantage,
Do groundsmen now feel they have to prepare wickets for payback so we get a green seamer or a dry arid bunsen burner, do we need to get our own back?
Is it time to take the toss out of the equation to try and redress a worrying trend?
These ridiculous mini two test series won't comply as they're just not series, away sides can compete for a short while. The true examination, the four and five test series are where you are found out, where home advantage tells, where the home side rules.
Take two top level sides, roughly equal in strength, playing a four or five test series, and whoever is hosting, one-sided cricket beckons. This is a growing phenomenon and is emblematic of a fundamental shift in the nature of test cricket, it is the story of test matches this decade, and which once more threatens to be played out during India’s series in England.
Play on a cloudy day at Trent Bridge, or a sweltering one in Kolkata, and the essence of the contest is inverted. Pace and bounce in the Brisbane heat does similarly for Australia.
In the past 10 Tests that Australia, England and India have played against each other, home and away, Australia have won 15 at home, but only three away. England have won 15 at home and just two away. India have won 13 at home, and a meagre two away.
One sided test series are now emblematic of a fundamental shift in the nature of home advantage,
Do groundsmen now feel they have to prepare wickets for payback so we get a green seamer or a dry arid bunsen burner, do we need to get our own back?
Is it time to take the toss out of the equation to try and redress a worrying trend?
These ridiculous mini two test series won't comply as they're just not series, away sides can compete for a short while. The true examination, the four and five test series are where you are found out, where home advantage tells, where the home side rules.
4737carlin
Player Valuation: £90m
Been found not guilty
If that was a normal person they would have been found guilty. Bit of a joke to be honest
Not sure he's all that 'lucky' in fairness.
Lots of he said she said in terms of the build-up to the video of the incident and plenty that couldn't be recalled.
Toast
Player Valuation: £80m
He can continue his career and IPL Etc.
If that was video footage of Duncan Ferguson for example, would he have been found not guilty ?
Ive managed to get a not proven verdict myself for a similar incident, not a not guilty. Bouncers / doormen make shocking witnesses and get ragged in court.
Brendan Janus
Player Valuation: £40m
Ben Stokes is vile !!
Ring master
Player Valuation: £90m
How he got away with this,i have no idea,its so blatant its unreal
Had his name not been involved, there's a doubt it would have even gone to court.
Chris O'Connor
Player Valuation: £35m
Tbf I largely expected this verdict as the burden of proof and removal of all doubt as regards any mitigating or aggravating circumstance plus the fickle nature of jury verdicts, all made me think it quite likely.
There is an ongoing ECB investigation into Ben Stokes which was put on hold pending the outcome of his court case.
The ECB apparently were careful to say that Stokes wasn't suspended for the last ashes, just not selected, which is really splitting legal hairs and just on their lawyers advice, their lawyers gave them unequivocal advice that they shouldn't continue that 'suspension' and possibly made a mistake in the first place. Many now think it could seriously come back to haunt them as it has to at least be taken into account, If they are to consider 'further' disciplinary action despite the verdict in the civil courts. They may argue the burden of proof is far greater in the civil courts and the guilty threshold far higher and they can act on the balance of probabilities alone.
Now he is cleared, the ECB committee should reconvene within 48 hours, with a verdict reached within a week which would then needs to be rubber stamped by a full committee. I'm fairly sure that's not set in stone and could be done far more expeditiously.
So whatever the outcome of the ecb proceedings he's highly unlikely to be considered for Trent Bridge.
If he was somehow available however, then the two young lads, Curran and Pope, would almost certainly be vulnerable. At Trent Bridge, where the seamers usually make hay, dropping spinner Rashid is another option.
Is Stokes a better batsman than Pope at five or six? Probably if on form, and is he also a better cricketer than Curran atm, despite his great start? Again yes. I personally would like to see Bairstow at four even if it means giving the gloves to Buttler.
*******
Whether after sitting through a court case with all the natural anxiety and tension that would inevitably involve, he would be mentally prepared to play in the next test anyway, is another question?
There is an ongoing ECB investigation into Ben Stokes which was put on hold pending the outcome of his court case.
The ECB apparently were careful to say that Stokes wasn't suspended for the last ashes, just not selected, which is really splitting legal hairs and just on their lawyers advice, their lawyers gave them unequivocal advice that they shouldn't continue that 'suspension' and possibly made a mistake in the first place. Many now think it could seriously come back to haunt them as it has to at least be taken into account, If they are to consider 'further' disciplinary action despite the verdict in the civil courts. They may argue the burden of proof is far greater in the civil courts and the guilty threshold far higher and they can act on the balance of probabilities alone.
Now he is cleared, the ECB committee should reconvene within 48 hours, with a verdict reached within a week which would then needs to be rubber stamped by a full committee. I'm fairly sure that's not set in stone and could be done far more expeditiously.
So whatever the outcome of the ecb proceedings he's highly unlikely to be considered for Trent Bridge.
If he was somehow available however, then the two young lads, Curran and Pope, would almost certainly be vulnerable. At Trent Bridge, where the seamers usually make hay, dropping spinner Rashid is another option.
Is Stokes a better batsman than Pope at five or six? Probably if on form, and is he also a better cricketer than Curran atm, despite his great start? Again yes. I personally would like to see Bairstow at four even if it means giving the gloves to Buttler.
*******
Whether after sitting through a court case with all the natural anxiety and tension that would inevitably involve, he would be mentally prepared to play in the next test anyway, is another question?
Chris O'Connor
Player Valuation: £35m
Exactly
As you say too...
Crucially there were parts that the video hardly covered at all including at the start, the prosecution admitted it didnt know.
The burden of conclusive proof is always on the prosecution, if they didn't know then how can the jury?
It's the burden of proof and the high threshold that has to be reached for conclusive proof that can make a sound defence, I think that could easily have been a big factor here.
The judge in his summing up kept stressing 'you have to be sure'.
Probably the right verdict. Hard to know how you'd react if your in front of a guy swinging a bottle. He went too far mind you and needs to cut out the heavy drinking. He'll have 40 years of retirement for messing about.