Oh Stokesy......STOKESY!!!

Candice Warner has said he should get punished

embee wrote:Candice Warner has said he should get punished

she and Dave deserve each other.

Candice Warner's gobbings-off on this matter being more worth listening to than the untold number of other pub and SBM motor-mouths pontifications because......????

Well, two days cricket out of a possible 25 is too early to call how the series will go - but so far it looks pretty even.

Would Stokes have done any better than Vince/Malan/Ball (delete as desired) ? Who knows?

TBH, if we end up losing the first test or two badly and he becomes available, bringing him out will look desperate. He'll always wonder if he'd have made a huge difference.

If we lose the series narrowly, he'll wonder if he could have turned it into a win.

Should we win (unlikely I know), then we didn't need him, and he'll forever regret not being a part of it.

In short - he's always going to remember being the odds-on favourite for SPOTY SQOTY (sports qunt of the year

taipan wrote:

embee wrote:Candice Warner has said he should get punished

she and Dave deserve each other.

Have some compassion, that's punishment enough.

Surely this guy should be charged. The vision is diabolical. Any other bloke would be in the slammer. Mirrors the soft treatment SA dealt Pistoffus.

Qmy will know the right term, but from memory there a legal procedure called a writ of Mandamus. When served the jacks would be obliged to show why he has not been charged.

It is stinks like Pomgolian inaction over Edward Heath and his toff mates who abused and possibly disappeared some young folk.

What if one of the blokes thumped by Stokesgot a serious head injury or was killed?

Well it turns out one victim received a fractured eye socket. 

According to the attached report the coppers have finished their investigation but have passed their brief on to the Crown Prosecuting Service. They will decide if the evidence is strong enough to warrant charges.

Link

I won't hold my breath though. CPS doesn't really mean Crown Prosecution Service.

Most of the time it means

Couldn't Prosecute Satan

usually for lack of evidence.

Growler wrote:I won't hold my breath though. CPS doesn't really mean Crown Prosecution Service.

Most of the time it means

Couldn't Prosecute Satan

usually for lack of evidence.

Absolute burnished gold.

I would have thought the injury and the vision of a sustained brutal attack constitutes evidence that should be tested in Court.

It should do - but in all seriousness, I won't bet the farm on it. He wouldn't be the first, honestly.

I see Canterbury have rushed him into their side, to replace their own currently banned young thug.

Stokesy's now the designated team thug.

lardbucket wrote:I see Canterbury have rushed him into their side, to replace their own currently banned young thug.

Stokesy's now the designated team thug.

"Oooooooooooooooh, BENjamin STOKEseeeee ....."

lardbucket wrote:I see Canterbury have rushed him into their side, to replace their own currently banned young thug.

Stokesy's now the designated team thug.

Made a powerful two runs on debut

The debate's never done until Kevin Pietersen weighs in ...

Linky

furriner wrote:The debate's never done until Kevin Pietersen weighs in ...    

Linky

I have been listening to some of KP's Ashes commentary. From the bits I have heard he has been balance and shown no enmity to his former team mates.

http://www.cricket.com.au/news/ben-stokes-alex-hales-england-odi-squad-australia-one-day-ashes-tests-police-ecb/2017-12-04

Stokes and Hales to be named in England ODI squad...?

taipan wrote:

furriner wrote:The debate's never done until Kevin Pietersen weighs in ...    

Linky

I have been listening to some of KP's Ashes commentary. From the bits I have heard he has been balance and shown no enmity to his former team mates.

His reactions in the story I've quoted suggest a hilariously different take. Maybe because it was Strauss.

KP for ECB chairman... Piers Morgan can be his PR man

furriner wrote:

taipan wrote:

furriner wrote:The debate's never done until Kevin Pietersen weighs in ...    

Linky

I have been listening to some of KP's Ashes commentary. From the bits I have heard he has been balance and shown no enmity to his former team mates.

His reactions in the story I've quoted suggest a hilariously different take.  Maybe because it was Strauss.

Exactly. Which is why I said on air.

I like listening to KP and Aggers. Both are even handed and KP is surprisingly astute.

Would enjoy listening to KP and TGM together.

horace wrote:I like listening to KP and Aggers. Both are even handed and KP is surprisingly astute.

Would enjoy listening to KP and TGM together.

Pah - amateurs and ingenues. You need to get with it horace and tune yourself into the best commentary pairing ever invented.

Ladies and gentlemen I give you

Swanny and Flemmo

Laugh a minute, well for each other at least. As for the rest of us listening - who gives a ****** we're ace. Let me do a shite Aussie accent while you talk about the Motorway of Mayhem or the Cul de Sac of Confusion.

The time just flies by horace - every utterance is pure poetry. Like them, I barely notice the cricket is even occurring.

Hehehe...you poor folk. Fleming when not trying too hard to amuse, can be interesting. However I draw the line at listening to Chinhead, cricket's version of a net troll.

Ed Smith* and Vic Marks would be a serious ticket.

(* despite his tendency to small paroxysms when he thinks there's a wicket - I hate the ramped-up heart-attack style of cricket commentary ... as if the public were numbed zombies in serious need of massive emotional resuscitation. FWIW, I believe if you need that much massive passion injection by a commentator, you may be losing your own nerves and affect.)

Dizzy, Boof and Nannes are (esp the first two) surprisingly good summarisers, but two are otherwise employed. Coney is the king of the lot.

Simon Mann has become a very decent commentator on BBC Radio, though no "old pro" - and has overtaken a number of neck-bulgingly biased hystericals in vogue with product-flogging media companies. - Good voice quality, tries manfully to give a fair as well as fully informative account.


Some others are terrible - either obsessed with themselves and continually regaling the punters with inanely irrelevant minutiae of their own not really very fascinating private lives and ?tastes? - or idiotically chronic readers of the game, and where it's going (often blinded by biased wishful thinking - but sometimes it's almost worse, you wonder how they played the game with any success at a professional level, such is the mundane density of the comments) - or else overselling product and yowling & shrieking through a frosted glass of partisan hysteria, as noted.

Some, all three. Naming no names here.