4th Test: South Africa v England at Centurion on Jan 22-26, 2016

[ANTiLAG]

Your would have to be a real mongrel to be death riding and running Stokes down this early in his career. Jealous he is not playing for his birth country are we?

Not at all.

I don't want Stokes.

I don't particularly want Neesham until he learns to play good spin.

And I don't even want future pyjama ATG Corey Anderson in the NZ test team.

I want a batsman averaging 40+ at #6.

Don't you?

So give me Jesse Ryder or trial Colin Munro (or pray that Santner comes good).

Ben Stokes is not missed in NZ cricket. We have three allrounders in Neesham, Anderson and Santner already competing. They are being chased by Munro (who should be leading them in my opinion).

But inarguably the most talented is Jesse Ryder. Because he has proven that he can bat as a pure frontline batsman. And he opens the bowling for Essex. A middle order with Ryder sure beats the heck out of Stokes. I would trial Munro too.

If Ben Stokes was Clarrie Grimmett, a top drawer spin bowling option, NZ cricket fans would be having a real tough time, though.

 

[ANTiLAG]

What rubbish.
England were a couple of overs away from winning the 1st test when bad light stopped play. All they needed was another 25 runs.

Pakistan scored over 500 before declaring in the first innings. Took a mammoth heroic knock from Cook to keep England in the game. What he score, 260?

Cook did play a heroic innings because he can. Malik played a good innings in that test too.

Malik is not expected for those scores. Misbah more likely is, but Younis Khan is the king of them.

Anyone that is not totally biased can see Stokes is talented. Not many 24 year olds that play test cricket and can win games in there own right for their team. He is a special player and entertaining.

He still averages 39 with the ball and 34 with the bat.

He is the reverse of Sanath Jayasuriya.

I bet many thought Wasim Akram was going to develop something special as an allrounder with the bat as well when he was 24.

 

[Pennies]

Not at all.

I don't want Stokes.

I don't particularly want Neesham until he learns to play good spin.

And I don't even want future pyjama ATG Corey Anderson in the NZ test team.

I want a batsman averaging 40+ at #6.

Don't you?

So give me Jesse Ryder or trial Colin Munro (or pray that Santer comes good).

Ben Stokes is not missed in NZ cricket. We have three allrounders in Neesham, Anderson and Santner already competing. But the most talented is Jesse Ryder. Because he can actually bat as a pure frontline batsman. And he opens the bowling for Essex.

If Ben Stokes was Clarrie Grimmett, a top drawer spin bowling option, NZ cricket fans would be having a real tough time, though.

Stokes is an allrounder not a just a batsmen. Flintoff never averaged 40 with the bat either. Stokes is young give him time to develop. He has the potential to be in a different league than the allrounders you mentioned.
You can't compare Jessie Ryder to him. he only played 18 tests and bowls with an average of 56. Ryder is a batsmen. Thats it, a little handy with the ball in ODI but that is all.

 

[ANTiLAG]

Stokes is an allrounder not a just a batsmen. Flintoff never averaged 40 with the bat either. Stokes is young give him time to develop. He has the potential to be in a different league than the allrounders you mentioned.
You can't compare Jessie Ryder to him. he only played 18 tests and bowls with an average of 56. Ryder is a batsmen. Thats it, a little handy with the ball in ODI but that is all.

You do not know what you're talking about. Seriously, Jesse Ryder opens the bowling for Essex.

Stokes plays county cricket, yeah? Stokes has a first class average of over 30 bowling.

Ryder, averages 27.8.

Ryder's bowling has been a recent development and come on strong since he was dropped from the test team.

If he plays for NZ again, NZ owes Essex a thankyou. 7 five wicket bags, two ten fors, he is not just a batsman.

In tests, if given the choice between Ryder batting at 6, and the 5th bowler, or Stokes, I will take Ryder every single day of the year. In ODI's or T20, I will take Anderson. Hands down.

So I repeat, Ben Stokes is not missed in NZ cricket. Believe it or not. And that is before the possible virtues of Colin Munro are fully trialled in test cricket.

 

[Pennies]

You do not know what you're talking about.

Stokes plays county cricket, yeah? Stokes has a first class average of over 30 bowling.

Ryder, averages 27.8.

Ryder's bowling has been a recent development and come on strong since he was dropped from the test team.

If he plays for NZ again, NZ owes Essex a thankyou.

I don't give a stuff what Ryder averages in country cricket when you are trying to compare him to Stokes at a test level.
At the moment Ryder average 56 at test level with the ball, thats is what we are talking about. He has talent with the bat Ryder but I have never seen him with talent with the ball at Test level. If he is doing well at county level good to him.If he ever makes it back to the test team lets see how he goes.
No one is saying Stokes is the next Flintoff or the next messiah but he has talent with the bat and ball the has serveral times won England matches by his own.
How many matches at test level has Ryder won with the ball? Answer none.
Stokes averages with the ball will come down. Give him a chance. Stop running him down everytime he fails.

 

[ANTiLAG]

I don't give a stuff what Ryder averages in country cricket when you are trying to compare him to Stokes at a test level.
At the moment Ryder average 56 at test level with the ball, thats is what we are talking about. He has talent with the bat Ryder but I have never seen him with talent with the ball at Test level.

No one is saying Stokes is the next Flintoff or the next messiah but he has talent with the bat and ball the has serveral times won England matches by his own.
How many matches at test level has Ryder won with the ball? Answer none.
Stokes averages with the ball will come down. Give him a chance. Stop running him down everytime he fails.

This is a very poor and defensive argument denying abstract reasoning of FC form as a guide to test ability and ignoring context of Jesse cricketing development. Even then, it ignores Jesse's displayed superior batsmanship to Stokes.

All in all, it is rather facile.

But like I say, with Colin Munro to trial, Jesse Ryder to maybe come back, Corey Anderson destroying pyjama cricketers and James Neesham still in the mix - Ben Stokes is not greatly missed in NZ. I don't want Corey Anderson in the test side, and I would not want Ben Stokes.

I and so do many, want Ryder, with Colin Munro to be trialled.

 

[Pennies]

This is a very poor and defensive argument denying abstract reasoning of FC form and ignoring context of Jesse cricketing development.

All in all, it is rather facile.

But like I say, with Colin Munro to trial, Jesse Ryder to maybe come back, Corey Anderson destroying pyjama cricketers and James Neesham still in the mix - Ben Stokes is not missed in NZ.

Not really plenty of players have dominated at county or state level but failed to step up at test level. Before you jump down my throat I think Ryder is a wonderfully talented batsmen at test level that has yet to show the same with the ball at test level that he has at county level.
Thats my point.
I never said Stokes was a better batsmen than Ryder. He could be. He is better than Ryder at test level with the ball. Throw in his batting which is getting better and you have a talented player.
I understand you point about Jessie performing well with the ball for Essex. If he made it back to the test team and performed the same at county level with the ball it would change my opinion.
You keep Ryder and we will keep Stokes. Who cars really ? if both perform even opposition fans would be happy there are getting entertained.

 

[ANTiLAG]

Not really plenty of players have dominated at county or state level but failed to step up at test level. Before you jump down my throat I think Ryder is a wonderfully talented batsmen at test level that has yet to show the same with the ball at test level that he has at county level.
Thats my point.

I understand your point.

But there is further context to it than merely using Jesse pre-Essex test bowling as a guide.

Not in the least is a selection theory of preferring the number 6 batsman in test cricket to ideally command a place in the side with their batting prowess. Yes, someone in the top 6 may need to help the bowling unit out, but that is what makes Sobers, Mushtaq Mohammad, Kallis, Sanath Jayasuirya, Steve Waugh and even Mark Waugh so valuable.

A rule of thumb for mine, for both the 'batting allrounder' at #6 (but not absolute - Jayasuriya, Mudassar Nazar, Gayle and Hafeez for example open/ed) - their batting average should hopefully exceed their bowling average (Gayle is ever so close - KW does qualify - but then so does Steve Smith with a bowling average over 50 - so maybe call it batting over 40 and bowling under 40). Hopefully the batting is above 40. This is even sweeter if in conjunction when the #8 bowling allrounder, like Imran Khan, Kapil Dev or Richard Hadlee who can also do the same.

For tests, I would select the 6 best batsmen, and then see who can bowl what. If there is a slightly inferior batsman around who can bowl significantly better, then they come into the equation. But an allrounder at 6, who could in theory open the bowling but won't, is unnecessary, especially if costing a lot of runs with the bat.

So I personally do not want a Manoj Probhakar, Ben Stokes or a Corey Anderson in a test team. Batting 30-35 while bowling at 35-40, is not my ideal. I do not care how well Freddie played in the 2005 Ashes or what a truly champion player he was in ODI cricket. In my side, he bats 8 or 9, makes his way in the team as a seamer first, or does not play. But I think he would make most teams throughout the world in history batting at 8, even if he is the third seamer, and not the fourth.

 

[Twizzle]

Stokes is streets ahead of Ryder. No comparison imo

I do like Ryder he's a natural talent but at this early stage of Stokes career he is already a far superior player than Ryder, particular in bowling, Ryder was only slow medium

 

[ANTiLAG]

Stokes is streets ahead of Ryder. No comparison imo

I do like Ryder he's a natural talent but at this early stage of Stokes career he is already a far superior player than Ryder, particular in bowling, Ryder was only slow medium

Disagree completely.

Stokes is too much of a chump to bat 6 in a test team I'd select. Love to him at 8 if he was good enough with the ball. Which he is not. However, Ryder is now more than good enough as a 5th bowling option and still bat at 6. He is still only medium pace, but he gets movement. Even with a little seam kookaburra.

But yeah, you guys are used to Mitchell Marsh now, that anything at #6 looks better to you.

And there is no way Stokes displays more batting promise than Jesse at the same age. Jesse should be battling Ross Taylor for #2 bat right now. It is very sad.

 

[redvscotty]

I might be wrong, but have the Kiwi's just hijacked ANOTHER cricket thread which has nothing to do with their bunch of plodders in the first place?

 

[ANTiLAG]

You're wrong.

Pennies brought NZ cricket into this with his Stokes playing for NZ question.

I think Pennies is English, but could be Welsh. Def an EWCB fan, though.

 

[Hutty1986]

I might be wrong, but have the Kiwi's just hijacked ANOTHER cricket thread which has nothing to do with their bunch of plodders in the first place?

Fairly standard. Expecting some antilag youtube clips any second now

 

[ANTiLAG]

Fairly standard. Expecting some antilag youtube clips any second now

Well you have not made any wild claims, yet Hutty.

 

[The Roth]

I might be wrong, but have the Kiwi's just hijacked ANOTHER cricket thread which has nothing to do with their bunch of plodders in the first place?

Correct Kiwi corner high jacked the 1st test between South Africa and England with irrelevant rubbish and in this thread. I come on here to read about and talk to other people about the current test series not about about bloody Pakistan or NZ . Or how much a certain person hates Ben Stokes.

Stokes is too much of a chump to bat 6 in a test team I'd select.

That is a silly comment and underlines how blatantly biased you really are to Ben Stokes which has been illustrated over the past few pages.
A chump does not hit the 2nd fastest double century of all time. Ben Stokes did.
A chump does not hit the highest test score by a number 6. Ben Stokes did.
A chump does not hit the fastest 250 of all time. Ben Stokes did.
A chump does not hit a maiden ton in only his 2nd test against a rampant Mitchell Johnson aged only 21. When his team mates were on the verge of surrendering the ashes.
A chump does not score a match turning century against NZ and the fastest ever Test century at Lord's and second fastest by an England batsman. Ben Stokes did.
A chump does not win man of the match awards either. Ben Stokes has 2 and there will be many more.
I could go on and on with more achievements and how how much he is improving as a cricketer, but why bother you are too pigheaded to meet me in the middle.

It is evidently clear over the past few pages you have a biased or ignorant opinion of Ben Stokes which clouds your judgement of him, as such it should be retold to a gold fish.
Go ahead nit pick over my comments like you have with others I don't really care I have had enough of this thread.

 

[Hutty1986]

Well you have not made any wild claims, yet Hutty.

I'm fairly certain I didn't do that before, either. Just because Steve Smith dropped a couple of catches over the summer doesn't automatically mean the majority of your side (which lost 2-0 and hasn't won a test series in this nation in many years, btw) are better fieldsman than him.

 

[Buzzard Breath]

Correct Kiwi corner high jacked the 1st test between South Africa and England with irrelevant rubbish and in this thread. I come on here to read about and talk to other people about the current test series not about about bloody Pakistan or NZ . Or how much a certain person hates Ben Stokes.




That is a silly comment and underlines how blatantly biased you really are to Ben Stokes which has been illustrated over the past few pages.
A chump does not hit the 2nd fastest double century of all time. Ben Stokes did.
A chump does not hit the highest test score by a number 6. Ben Stokes did.
A chump does not hit the fastest 250 of all time. Ben Stokes did.
A chump does not hit a maiden ton in only his 2nd test against a rampant Mitchell Johnson aged only 21. When his team mates were on the verge of surrendering the ashes.
A chump does not score a match turning century against NZ and the fastest ever Test century at Lord's and second fastest by an England batsman. Ben Stokes did.
A chump does not win man of the match awards either. Ben Stokes has 2 and there will be many more.
I could go on and on with more achievements and how how much he is improving as a cricketer, but why bother you are too pigheaded to meet me in the middle.

It is evidently clear over the past few pages you have a biased or ignorant opinion of Ben Stokes which clouds your judgement of him, as such it should be retold to a gold fish.
Go ahead nit pick over my comments like you have with others I don't really care I have had enough of this thread.

Well said Roth. I have been coming on here for a few years and each time the thread go off on another tangent by someone. All I want to talk about on here too is England & South Africa. The only time people comment on here is to fly off the handle of a grievance or come out of the woodwork when England get bowled out for an embarrassing score. Axes to grind by many.

Agree on stokes. Been too much unwarranted personal attacks on him.

We should be talking about what happen last night in the test including Rabada's persistent accuracy of bowling than other crap. though I don't hold out much hope.

 

[ANTiLAG]

Your would have to be a real mongrel to be death riding and running Stokes down this early in his career. Jealous he is not playing for his birth country are we?

Since when was answering questions like the above a hijacking?

People getting a little sensitive around here.

 

[ANTiLAG]

Correct Kiwi corner high jacked the 1st test between South Africa and England with irrelevant rubbish and in this thread. I come on here to read about and talk to other people about the current test series not about about bloody Pakistan or NZ . Or how much a certain person hates Ben Stokes.

See above post.

I reckon Ben is probably a good guy. His father is a NZ rugby league champion.

I think most NZ'ers wish Ben Stokes well. So I seriously have no idea what you;ve been reading if you think there has been something personal said about Ben Stokes not being liked.

Perhaps you are illiterate. All I said is he is not missed by NZ cricket due to plenty of all rounders, of which, I would not select most of them. I want a number 6 who can average 40.

That is a silly comment and underlines how blatantly biased you really are to Ben Stokes which has been illustrated over the past few pages.
A chump does not hit the 2nd fastest double century of all time. Ben Stokes did.
A chump does not hit the highest test score by a number 6. Ben Stokes did.
A chump does not hit the fastest 250 of all time. Ben Stokes did.
A chump does not hit a maiden ton in only his 2nd test against a rampant Mitchell Johnson aged only 21. When his team mates were on the verge of surrendering the ashes.
A chump does not score a match turning century against NZ and the fastest ever Test century at Lord's and second fastest by an England batsman. Ben Stokes did.
A chump does not win man of the match awards either. Ben Stokes has 2 and there will be many more.
I could go on and on with more achievements and how how much he is improving as a cricketer, but why bother you are too pigheaded to meet me in the middle.

It is evidently clear over the past few pages you have a biased or ignorant opinion of Ben Stokes which clouds your judgement of him, as such it should be retold to a gold fish.
Go ahead nit pick over my comments like you have with others I don't really care I have had enough of this thread.

Ben Stokes averages 34. I want a #6 to average 40. Thought I was pretty clear about that. But hey continue with the Ad Hominem, it amuses me.

 

[ANTiLAG]

I'm fairly certain I didn't do that before, either. Just because Steve Smith dropped a couple of catches over the summer doesn't automatically mean the majority of your side (which lost 2-0 and hasn't won a test series in this nation in many years, btw) are better fieldsman than him.

Haha, you said he was better than ANY of New Zealand's fielders.

Smith is better than anyone little brother has

Did you watch those youtube videos?

You're welcome.