Cricket 24/7

Cricket 24/7 (http://www.cricket247.org/community/index.php)
-   International Cricket (http://www.cricket247.org/community/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   2nd Test Man of the Match thread (http://www.cricket247.org/community/showthread.php?t=20439)

Ali TT 7th January 2016 23:53

2nd Test Bairstow should've been Man of the Match thread
 
As requested

Psyduck 7th January 2016 23:55

Stokes. Obvs.

YAMS 7th January 2016 23:57

Can we make sure this is a populist poll, no point otherwise.

Aidan11 8th January 2016 00:14

Where's the poll?

Michelle Fivefer 8th January 2016 01:51

Yes, where's the poll?

Anyway, Stokes.

Ali TT 8th January 2016 10:31

Yeah, I ballsed that up... I mean, this isn't a popularity contest so NO POLL!

D/L 8th January 2016 10:58

In terms of impact on the outcome, Bairstow - obvious.

If it's become an award for entertainment as implied by the announcer then, equally obviously, Stokes.

Notts Exile 8th January 2016 12:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by D/L (Post 698681)
In terms of impact on the outcome, Bairstow - obvious.

Not really. The man in whose slipstream he played nicely had a larger impact. A supporting role should be seen as just that. His second innings contribution wasn't as important as it could have been as rain and bad light meant that even had he been out first ball it was highly unlikely play would have lasted long enough for ZA to have got near England. Sorry to pee all over your White Rose parade.

Come on, get the poll up, let's see how many believe MotM was anyone other than either Stokes or Amla?

Aidan11 8th January 2016 12:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Notts Exile (Post 698690)

Come on, get the poll up, let's see how many believe MotM was anyone other than either Stokes or Amla?

I think only one will vote against those two and we all know who that is.

blackeyedangles 8th January 2016 13:59

If you're giving it to someone other than Stokes, you can't justify giving it to Bairstow instead of Amla.

The whole Test was played in the shadow of Stokes' innings, though.

stevieh 8th January 2016 14:00

That is democracy for you. There are always contrarians (and the lunatic fringe), but it sort of works out.

YAMS 8th January 2016 14:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevieh (Post 698696)
There are always contrarians (and the lunatic fringe), but it sort of works out.

We certainly have one of the above discriptions amongst us.

D/L 8th January 2016 16:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by YAMS (Post 698698)
We certainly have one of the above discriptions amongst us.

Can't believe this is necessary again (or maybe I can). ...

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/de...sh/description

D/L 8th January 2016 16:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackeyedangles (Post 698695)
If you're giving it to someone other than Stokes, you can't justify giving it to Bairstow instead of Amla. ...

I don't remember Bairstow being dropped as often as Amla was.

D/L 8th January 2016 16:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Notts Exile (Post 698690)
...Sorry to pee all over your White Rose parade. ...

Not just verbally incontinent, then?

Aidan11 8th January 2016 17:05

I don't think I've ever seen a poll shoot so far up in one direction.


Make up your own Harry Styles joke there. For legal reasons I couldn't possibly comment.

YAMS 8th January 2016 17:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by D/L (Post 698710)
Can't believe this is necessary again (or maybe I can). ...

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/de...sh/description

It's almost like I did it in purpose, isn't it....

Ali TT 8th January 2016 17:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aidan11 (Post 698718)
I don't think I've ever seen a poll shoot so far up in one direction.


Make up your own Harry Styles joke there. For legal reasons I couldn't possibly comment.

Democracy is for idiots who prefer to be seen to think like everyone else rather than do what is actually right. The labour party tried it and ended up with Jeremy Corbyn.

Fatslogger 8th January 2016 18:18

I liked this bit from the online dictionary:

Quote:

it is laughably easy to buy drugs of all descriptions
Explains a lot.

Plus Stokes, blindingly obviously.

Rebelstar 9th January 2016 13:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aidan11 (Post 698718)
I don't think I've ever seen a poll shoot so far up in one direction.

Probably because with a fairly obvious conclusion most of the time you wouldn't bother with one.

In a game where there were lots of runs, few bowlers stood out and he made the biggest and quickfire double, it's a no brainer.

I was tempted to play devil's advocate and vote "anyone else" with Amla and others who still had to make their runs under more pressure than Stokes was under bearing in mind England weren't 600 runs behind when they were batting...........

Maybe I should change my vote ;) , that is a valid point


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 21:32.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Cricket247.org