did you expect anything else from stokes under mccullum****s sake. Absolute give away, especially same shot nearly did for him before.
I get smashing the 5th bowler around when they gave just lost a seamer but not every ball
Around 140 you reckon?What's the over/under on Stokes' innings strike rate when he comes to the crease?
Around 140 I reckon, regardless of whether we're close to parity or not when he bats.
I mean that partnership could easily have had us pretty close to parity by close.Feels like we could have lost the game right there, a partnership between those two had a good chance of minimising the chances of a loss, but giving it away like that means that NZ just batting and declaring is pratically unavoidable, and we may well crumble trying to bat it out.
Hmm, it was fun, but **** knows how this is going, but I genuinely think there is results in play, I mean Foakes should just play his natural game, which is quite dullJesus this is brutal stuff. Risky but our RR is giving this one a slight chance of a result
Sure if you are going with this tiresome avenue there's probably been quite a few South Africans, and hey Cowdrey and Jardine were born in India.A debutant getting his maiden test wicket, that of his fellow countryman.
This has never happened in the history of this game, no?
Hmm, maybe Stokes was actually genuinely trying to generate a win instead of settling for a draw.Jesus this is brutal stuff. Risky but our RR is giving this one a slight chance of a result
A big hundred would have done that rather than a cameoHmm, maybe Stokes was actually genuinely trying to generate a win instead of settling for a draw.
I find it more annoying in this case because basically everyone has scored pretty quickly anyway so far. There was no need to take risks like that to keep the runs flowingThat's why endless talk of positivity is so boring. Because you play the situation in all cases. And here, 1-0 up in a series 200 in arrears on a pudding, the focus should be on getting to parity with percentage plays. Not playing a t20 innings.
Yep. I sort of wanted to say this in the comparison threads when they started debating strike rates, but didn't because it was a bit tangential to to the actual examples being discussed. But as much as people (rightly) point out that scoring quickly has sometimes big, advantages the logic seems to spill over into saying that scoring runs quickly is always/usually better than scoring more runs, but more slowly, whereas in the majority of situations volume of runs is more important.A big hundred would have done that rather than a cameo
You do that by batting out another day and putting New Zealand in the position batting 3rd where it's almost impossible for them to force a win but very possible for them to lose by collapsing in a heap and leaving you about 150 to win.Hmm, maybe Stokes was actually genuinely trying to generate a win instead of settling for a draw.
Haha I'm definitely claiming that!Around 140 you reckon?
139.39
would of been 140 the ball before he got out, nice estimating.