Cricket

[AllRoverAsia]

17 hours ago, Baz said:

I agree with Gav, the definition and the video are pretty conclusive.

So he's got away with it. Hopefully he won't so so stupid to be out drinking after games again.

If the ECB has any sense they'll give him a small fine, and tell him he has to complete a couple of hundred hours working / coaching with kids

The ECB Stokes contract is £750k pa, how many England games did he miss? fine him pro-rata ie loads! Make him think twice about misbehaving, he has previous too, and stop being a fool.

At the time of the incident I was in Stokes corner. I followed the Court case and evidence as closely as possible and became convinced a guilty verdict was the only possible out come. If that had been Joe Public they would have been nicked.

Edited August 15, 2018 by AllRoverAsia

[Gav]

 

Stokes was clearly the aggressor, throwing punches, flicked a cigarette at the gay chap he was supposed to be defending, and proceeded to knock 1 lad out who was holding his hands up not looking for a fight.

The guys a bully.

Just imagine if you're a football fan on CCTV in the same circumstances, you'd have been jailed and banned from Ewood for life. 

But it's over now, no harm done in the grand scheme of things. 

 

Lancashire 82-7 away to Birmingham Bears and Flintoff commentating...... can it get any worse......

Edited August 15, 2018 by Gav

[K-Hod]

To add a bit of context to this, the gay lads he was protecting have been all over the media defending him today...

[Gav]

2 hours ago, K-Hod said:

To add a bit of context to this, the gay lads he was protecting have been all over the media defending him today...

Its affray, K-Hod context doesn't come into it.

He was acquitted of affray which quite frankly is a disgrace. 

But we move on.

Edited August 15, 2018 by Gav

[jim mk2]

1 hour ago, Gav said:

Its affray, K-Hod context doesn't come into it.

He was acuited of affray which frankly is a disgrace. 

But we move on.

 Agree Gav. If what Stokes was involved in wasn't affray as it is legally defined, what is ? 

Lancs well beaten tonight. 

[Rover-the-Top]

14 hours ago, Gav said:

 

Stokes was clearly the aggressor, throwing punches, flicked a cigarette at the gay chap he was supposed to be defending, and proceeded to knock 1 lad out who was holding his hands up not looking for a fight.

The guys a bully.

Just imagine if you're a football fan on CCTV in the same circumstances, you'd have been jailed and banned from Ewood for life. 

 

What footage have you seen? I ask because I've seen the fighting from two angles - one which just shows Stokes punching the guy, and another that shows the other guy trying to bottle one of the gay lads when Stokes intervenes. From just the former, I could understand arriving at a different verdict to the jury. But if you've seen the latter clip, it'd take some perverse logic to conclude Stokes was the agressor. Rather than being the bully, he was defending people from being bullied. As the gay couple have confirmed on TV. I doubt he'd have been charged if he wasn't a national sportsman and the story had got into the news.  What has this country come to if the "right" thing is to let someone get bottled and walk on by?

Edited August 16, 2018 by Rover-the-Top

[Gav]

10 hours ago, jim mk2 said:

 Agree Gav. If what Stokes was involved in wasn't affray as it is legally defined, what is ? 

Lancs well beaten tonight. 

Lancs poor again Jim, I turned it off at 85-6....as a few have already said, something not right at Old Trafford, could be time for change.

[chaddyrovers]

Stokes back in the team for the test tomorrow. Sam Curran dropped for him

[matt83]

Kent vs Lancs in the t20 quarters. On a bloody Thursday though the one day we unanimously said we couldn’t do. Bank holiday weekend so could have been Monday or heaven forbid all the games Saturday afternoon but don’t want to upset the paymasters at Sky. I’d love just once fans to be considered in sport. 

[matt83]

Re stokes there is definitely a type of person our legal system seems to protect and fortunately for Stokes he fits the bill. Regardless of any mitigating circumstances and what constitutes reasonable force most ordinary joes would not have been so lucky.

That’s just my opinion but with my cricket hat on good to have him back albeit very harsh on Curran. Might have been tempted to drop Buttler myself but if he ever turns up in a test match he’s a match winner. Plus Buttler seems to be Ed Smith’s pick so was always playing.

[chaddyrovers]

Sam Curran will have a long test future. Expect him to replace Broad not too long in the future

[chaddyrovers]

On 16/08/2018 at 08:12, Rover-the-Top said:

What footage have you seen? I ask because I've seen the fighting from two angles - one which just shows Stokes punching the guy, and another that shows the other guy trying to bottle one of the gay lads when Stokes intervenes. From just the former, I could understand arriving at a different verdict to the jury. But if you've seen the latter clip, it'd take some perverse logic to conclude Stokes was the agressor. Rather than being the bully, he was defending people from being bullied. As the gay couple have confirmed on TV. I doubt he'd have been charged if he wasn't a national sportsman and the story had got into the news.  What has this country come to if the "right" thing is to let someone get bottled and walk on by?

I agree with your view and points 

11 hours ago, matt83 said:

Kent vs Lancs in the t20 quarters. On a bloody Thursday though the one day we unanimously said we couldn’t do. Bank holiday weekend so could have been Monday or heaven forbid all the games Saturday afternoon but don’t want to upset the paymasters at Sky. I’d love just once fans to be considered in sport. 

I cant say I'm disappointed its on Thursday. I only get to watch Lancashire when on Sky. So with me working Sunday to Wednesday nights its ideal for me. 

Also I guess they dont want it clashing with live Premier League football. For audience viewers figures. 

[Husky]

I would have dropped Cook (out of form plus he loses runs by shelling easy catches) - perhaps Bairstow to open and played both Curran and Stokes.

 

[chaddyrovers]

1 hour ago, Husky said:

I would have dropped Cook (out of form plus he loses runs by shelling easy catches) - perhaps Bairstow to open and played both Curran and Stokes.

 

6 bowlers???

[Husky]

Just now, chaddyrovers said:

6 bowlers???

Well England are playing 3 wicket-keepers.

[matt83]

Couple of interesting stats:

Between 1938 and 2016 England were never bowled out in a session. It has now happened 3 times since then. 

In the last two years, England are averaging more batting first in ODIs than in test matches.

[Mattyblue]

‘Twas me! Hopefully you didn’t spot the Guinness stain right down my tshirt! 

16 wickets in a day and it wasn’t exactly hooping around corners like it can at Trent Bridge, some really poor shots played...

 

Edited August 20, 2018 by Mattyblue

[Mattyblue]

Indeed, love Trent Bridge, we were there today too in the Hound Road, it reminds me a bit of Lord’s around the Pavillion.

As a ground it’s a great example of how to combine new stands and the existing heritage, it makes Old Trafford look a bit of a mess.

Edited August 20, 2018 by Mattyblue

[den]

Old Trafford looks disjointed. Has it really been planned that way? Don’t like it at all TBH. 

[den]

Another failure by Jennings. I haven’t seen anything yet that suggests that he can be England’s regular opening batsman - however much I’d like to.

[chaddyrovers]

Tbh England batsmen havent been good enough this test or series..

Who could come in? Rory Burns, Hammed, Vince? 

Its a shame Livingstone is injured cos he would have been in the squad imo

[Husky]

There's just something a bit 'soft' about Root and the England 'coach'.

The series is well and truly on now. I get the feeling India will win it 3-2 if they win the toss at both The Oval and the other Toilet Bowl, or if Root stupidly inserts again.

=

[oldjamfan1]

Lancs are on the brink of relegation unfortunately.

[jim mk2]

Lancashire fell short by 6 runs - not quite good enough again.

There's nothing new with England batting failures - it been going on for years. How many times have England been 70 - 3 (or worse) and had to be bailed out by the middle order ?  

I don't know what the answer is. Many players they've tried have obvious technical faults, while others do not seem to have the temperament for test cricket. And it makes no sense to keep recalling players such as Jennings who have failed time and again.

 

 

 

 

[Husky]

If this is an England with this strong and deep' batting line-up they keep talking about -  can you imagine an England without one.

As for Lancs, I see they almost served the new Champions their first defeat . . . but almost isn't good enough. . . . It looks like they are going down as their relegation rivals all have a game in hand. Though getting relegated doesn't seem to matter so much in cricket.