Cricket 24/7  

Welcome to the Cricket 24/7.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. There are also more forums available to members, such as the Lounge - where members chat about just about anything under the sun except cricket!

Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.


Go Back   Cricket 24/7 > Cricket Discussion Forums > International Cricket
Register FAQDonate Members List Calendar Casino Articles Terms of Use Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

View Poll Results: Man of the match?
Nick Compton 9 34.62%
James Taylor 0 0%
Stuart Broad 6 23.08%
Moeen Ali 6 23.08%
Steven Finn 2 7.69%
Dean Elgar 3 11.54%
Voters: 26. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 1st January 2016, 10:21   #21
luckyluke
Established International
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,008
Difficult to pick really. You can argue whether this factors into the MotM judges and if it is correct or not to do so but given the lack of a really obvious choice giving it to the more inexperienced/younger/less confident player is a nicer thing to do and can give them a boost and for this reason I'd have given it to Mo over Broad and am pleased the judges did too.
__________________
Most heartless decision:

In a women's league match in Denmark, a heavily pregnant woman arrived at the crease, and asked for a runner. Her request was denied, on the grounds that her incapacity had not occured during the course of the match.
luckyluke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st January 2016, 20:05   #22
Rebelstar
International Material
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chin Music View Post
I voted for Broad on reasons I gave in the match thread. A decent lower order contribution taking England to 300 and then blowing their top order away. That for me had the biggest impact.
I think England would have made inroads with or without Broad's wickets, maybe the game might have become closer, but since both sides lost early wickets I think the runscoring did prove the decisive factor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chin Music View Post
To expand upon this, although I do believe Compton had a good impact in that he did help steady England's ship, the fact that he fell quite early on the 2nd morning without adding much to his overnight score meant that England hadn't gone very far and it took Broad to help England cross what was an acceptable total in the circumstances to a good one. With his bowling he then turned it into a decisive one.
Without Compton's efforts Broad's innings would likely have been negated in value. Sure it had a 'momentum' value to it, adding to England's and stifling the saffers', but had Compton not blunted the saffers then England may well have ended up 5-6 down by the time they got to 100 runs on the board and the saffers' batting frailties less exposed.

People trot out clichés like 'catches win matches' and 'you have to take 20 wickets to win a Test', but without (m)any runs to bowl at the effect of a bowling attack is negated. South Africa's bowling efforts weren't all that bad, drops, injury etc factored in - or out - but they didn't put the necessary runs on the board even with the match's only centurion.

Compton was at the crease from 3/1 through to 247/6 1st innings, 13/1 through to 119/3 2nd innings, 'only' added 135 of the 350 runs England scored whilst he was at the crease but that's a hell of a lot of runs to be scored by individual and whilst he was batting.

So Broad added some late runs, well you could equally argue Finn hung around and facilitated Broad's runs by scoring some runs and indeed by not getting out. I think helping add 244 runs if the first 247 played a far bigger part than 32no in adding a tailend battlers' 50 runs for the last 2 wickets.

And for Broad's bowling in the 1st innings, South Africa were still 100/2 so one could almost make the argument that Ali taking out Du Plessis, Duminy, Abbott and Steyn denied the support for Elgar that may have ground out another 50+ runs and possible lead..........

Aaargh, making a case for Ali to be MOTM, neither's bowling efforts would have counted for nearly as much if Compton had been out and left England say 75/4. Not easy to take out someone's runs and say "x would have been the total but for..........", but chalk off even half Compton's runs and England would have likely been out for around the same total as South Africa albeit without a key bowler incapacitated.

As batsmen rarely score much more than half the runs in a total wickets do tend to leave more of an impression on memory. It is funny that in a low scorer where neither side scored 350+ in an innings that the batsman who was at the crease whilst 350 runs were scored in the match gets less credit than a bowler who didn't even take most wickets.

I do have to question why in both Broad's first two spells Cook only gave him five overs when he'd taken 2 and 1 wickets respectively, ranks alongside opening with Woakes instead of Finn in my book - the latter laughable given Woakes made such an impression he was the one made way for Anderson's return
Rebelstar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st January 2016, 20:31   #23
Sir Virgs and Zamora
Posting God
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 18,384
Would it have been laughable to open with woakes if bairstow had held onto the catch to dismiss Amla?
Sir Virgs and Zamora is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st January 2016, 20:43   #24
Goochies Lovechild
Club Cricketer
 
Goochies Lovechild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Essex
Age: 74
Posts: 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ali TT View Post
Gave it Elgar. Yes he was on the losing side but carrying one's bat is a rare occurence and he was head and shoulders ahead of any of his teammates, in fact of any of the batsmen on show. That it's hard to distinguish between several English players makes the decision easier for me.
Im not sure this will happen often but I agree with you - Especially his first innings was awsome to carry your bat scoreing more than half your sides runs is a great feat

Yes Broady led the attack well in Jimmy' absence Mo (who is my hero) got some wickets

Compo pushed him close scoring VERY valuable runs at a time when England needed them and PROBABLY won the game for England but in the face of some serious bowling and poor behaviour by his fellow batsmen Elgar is my man
__________________
GL

Before you judge a man, walk a mile in his shoes; after that, who cares?! He's a mile away and you've got his shoes!

The statement below is true.
The statement above is false
Goochies Lovechild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st January 2016, 21:02   #25
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 41
Posts: 43,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rebelstar View Post
I think England would have made inroads with or without Broad's wickets, maybe the game might have become closer, but since both sides lost early wickets I think the runscoring did prove the decisive factor.
I'm not sure this post is really worth deconstructing, certainly beyond this bit, which is jumping up and down absurd. South Africa lost early wickets because Broad took them. That's why SA didn't get very many runs and why it was a low scoring game, from the perspective of the SA first innings, anyway. How can you argue that England would have taken early wickets without Broad when no other bowler took a wicket until Broad had already taken 3?

Quote:
Without Compton's efforts Broad's innings would likely have been negated in value. Sure it had a 'momentum' value to it, adding to England's and stifling the saffers', but had Compton not blunted the saffers then England may well have ended up 5-6 down by the time they got to 100 runs on the board and the saffers' batting frailties less exposed.

Compton was at the crease from 3/1 through to 247/6 1st innings, 13/1 through to 119/3 2nd innings, 'only' added 135 of the 350 runs England scored whilst he was at the crease but that's a hell of a lot of runs to be scored by individual and whilst he was batting.

So Broad added some late runs, well you could equally argue Finn hung around and facilitated Broad's runs by scoring some runs and indeed by not getting out. I think helping add 244 runs if the first 247 played a far bigger part than 32no in adding a tailend battlers' 50 runs for the last 2 wickets.

And for Broad's bowling in the 1st innings, South Africa were still 100/2 so one could almost make the argument that Ali taking out Du Plessis, Duminy, Abbott and Steyn denied the support for Elgar that may have ground out another 50+ runs and possible lead..........
I don't think Broad's run scoring is anyone's main reason for him being MotM but it was a very useful bonus, with some extra credit due for ending up not out. By contrast, how many wickets did Compton take?

You know how SA got to 100/2 then lost 3 quick wickets so suddenly went knee deep in the mire? It was Broad that took 2 of those wickets, including the one that opened up an end and was of the best batsman on either side, AB.

I think most people get that Compton had a good game and that his runs were very valuable, that bit isn't really in dispute but your arguments against Broad's contribution are either contradictory or just stand alone silly. Any rational analysis of the game recognises that both players and indeed Ali contributed greatly to England's win.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde

Last edited by Fatslogger : 1st January 2016 at 21:18.
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st January 2016, 21:29   #26
Goochies Lovechild
Club Cricketer
 
Goochies Lovechild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Essex
Age: 74
Posts: 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
I'm not sure this post is really worth deconstructing, certainly beyond this bit, which is jumping up and down absurd. South Africa lost early wickets because Broad took them. That's why SA didn't get very many runs and why it was a low scoring game, from the perspective of the SA first innings, anyway. How can you argue that England would have taken early wickets without Broad when no other bowler took a wicket until Broad had already taken 3?



I don't think Broad's run scoring is anyone's main reason for him being MotM but it was a very useful bonus, with some extra credit due for ending up not out. By contrast, how many wickets did Compton take?

You know how SA got to 100/2 then lost 3 quick wickets so suddenly went knee deep in the mire? It was Broad that took 2 of those wickets, including the one that opened up an end and was of the best batsman on either side, AB.

I think most people get that Compton had a good game and that his runs were very valuable, that bit isn't really in dispute but your arguments against Broad's contribution are either contradictory or just stand alone silly. Any rational analysis of the game recognises that both players and indeed Ali contributed greatly to England's win.
Why it there no like button on this forum.....
__________________
GL

Before you judge a man, walk a mile in his shoes; after that, who cares?! He's a mile away and you've got his shoes!

The statement below is true.
The statement above is false
Goochies Lovechild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st January 2016, 21:49   #27
YAMS
Banned
 
YAMS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goochies Lovechild View Post
Why it there no like button on this forum.....
It's never really been needed until now...
YAMS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st January 2016, 21:54   #28
Goochies Lovechild
Club Cricketer
 
Goochies Lovechild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Essex
Age: 74
Posts: 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by YAMS View Post
It's never really been needed until now...
Quality punditary

Indeed, you would get my second thanks.............
__________________
GL

Before you judge a man, walk a mile in his shoes; after that, who cares?! He's a mile away and you've got his shoes!

The statement below is true.
The statement above is false

Last edited by Goochies Lovechild : 1st January 2016 at 22:08.
Goochies Lovechild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st January 2016, 22:39   #29
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 41
Posts: 43,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goochies Lovechild View Post
Why it there no like button on this forum.....
This forum is a real refuge for the kind of fuddy duddy that doesn't like like buttons. I've never used a smiley in my life, and have at most partially come round to lol. Lol does seem about right for YAMS' post above though.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st January 2016, 23:20   #30
Goochies Lovechild
Club Cricketer
 
Goochies Lovechild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Essex
Age: 74
Posts: 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
This forum is a real refuge for the kind of fuddy duddy that doesn't like like buttons. I've never used a smiley in my life, and have at most partially come round to lol. Lol does seem about right for YAMS' post above though.
lol

Some forums feel like a like button does not reflect the quality of a persons post...IE when people check in and say hello when someone says hello back the newbie gives them a thanks - so they have a hundred/thousand/zillion thanks for posts that mean, basically FA

I must admit the origional post I do believe deserved a thanks but the chances of YAMS getting a thanks from me range between non existant and .......non existant... Someone who enjoys winding people up and caviats in his profile is clearly a complete plonker ( Mods save the dont wind Yams up PM) he started it!!
__________________
GL

Before you judge a man, walk a mile in his shoes; after that, who cares?! He's a mile away and you've got his shoes!

The statement below is true.
The statement above is false
Goochies Lovechild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st January 2016, 23:41   #31
YAMS
Banned
 
YAMS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goochies Lovechild View Post
lol

Some forums feel like a like button does not reflect the quality of a persons post...IE when people check in and say hello when someone says hello back the newbie gives them a thanks - so they have a hundred/thousand/zillion thanks for posts that mean, basically FA

I must admit the origional post I do believe deserved a thanks but the chances of YAMS getting a thanks from me range between non existant and .......non existant... Someone who enjoys winding people up and caviats in his profile is clearly a complete plonker ( Mods save the dont wind Yams up PM) he started it!!
You spelt 'existent' incorrectly, twice.

Lol...?

p.s. Don't judge a book by its cover. I'm as harmless as they come on here.
YAMS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd January 2016, 00:26   #32
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 41
Posts: 43,272
Sadly for YAMS he's nowhere even close to the discussion for being one of the three most irritating posters on here. Not even sure he'd make top ten.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd January 2016, 00:59   #33
Michelle Fivefer
Posting Goddess
 
Michelle Fivefer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: North West England
Team(s): England, Lancashire
Posts: 41,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goochies Lovechild View Post
Why it there no like button on this forum.....
There's a "good posting" smiley. Or did you actually mean a "no like" button? It would be worn out if there was.
__________________
As balanced and focused as the next man
Michelle Fivefer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd January 2016, 01:16   #34
YAMS
Banned
 
YAMS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
Sadly for YAMS he's nowhere even close to the discussion for being one of the three most irritating posters on here. Not even sure he'd make top ten.
YAMS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd January 2016, 10:41   #35
D/L
World Class
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Leeds
Team(s): Yorkshire CCC & England, Wakefield Trinity RLFC, Leeds Carnegie RUFC
Posts: 6,327
Posters are only irritating if one lets them be.

One can't control silly statements of others though, bowlers not signalling to keepers being an example, particularly when one claims to have kept wicket for many years.

"Bigging" oneself up could also be irritating if one let it. It is better to be amused by it.
D/L is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd January 2016, 11:08   #36
YAMS
Banned
 
YAMS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by D/L View Post
Posters are only irritating if one lets them be.

One can't control silly statements of others though, bowlers not signalling to keepers being an example, particularly when one claims to have kept wicket for many years.

"Bigging" oneself up could also be irritating if one let it. It is better to be amused by it.
<Searches for Michelle's 'No like' button>

YAMS is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 13:54.



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