FootballNews

Michael wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:

ozzie owl wrote:Smith average for this series is 147 what an amazing performance , surely now one of the all time greats .

You can't give him 3 chances and expect him not to destroy you.

Incorrect, you seriously cannot count the chance when he with out on a no-ball!

Michael wrote:

B.Toomer wrote:So typical of hypocritical aussies, when they have a South African with no australian blood whatsoever, chanting that to Joffra who has an English mother. When the aussies are not cheating, they are either being hypocritical or whinging. A sad race of people, indeed.

The only hypocrite her is you, mi amigo.
There was nothing bad or insulting about what those aussies said to him, he needs to grow some "cogliones".
Can you imagine what will happen to him when touring the West Indies, seeing his family?
Or what about when he finally tours here, the aussie crowd will give him much more than he is receiving.

Its ok though the abuse Smith, Warner and Bamcroft received though?

Michael wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:

ozzie owl wrote:Smith average for this series is 147 what an amazing performance , surely now one of the all time greats .

You can't give him 3 chances and expect him not to destroy you.

Incorrect, you seriously cannot count the chance when he was out on a no-ball!

God is an Englishman wrote:

Michael wrote:

B.Toomer wrote:So typical of hypocritical aussies, when they have a South African with no australian blood whatsoever, chanting that to Joffra who has an English mother. When the aussies are not cheating, they are either being hypocritical or whinging. A sad race of people, indeed.

The only hypocrite her is you, mi amigo.
There was nothing bad or insulting about what those aussies said to him, he needs to grow some "cogliones".
Can you imagine what will happen to him when touring the West Indies, seeing his family?
Or what about when he finally tours here, the aussie crowd will give him much more than he is receiving.

Its ok though the abuse Smith, Warner and Bamcroft received though?

abusing a cheat is the same as racially abusing someone.

Aussie crowds are reisling cats, you hardly even notice they're there.

God is an Englishman wrote:

Michael wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:

You can't give him 3 chances and expect him not to destroy you.

Incorrect, you seriously cannot count the chance when he was out on a no-ball!

why is that not a chance?

Every day you show up how you are not really a cricket follower.

Michael wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:

Michael wrote:

Incorrect, you seriously cannot count the chance when he was out on a no-ball!

why is that not a chance?

Every day you show up how you are not really a cricket follower.

Sorry, but I never claimed to be a hard core follower or a critic like yourself.
Doesn't mean i cannot have an opinion!

And you can't claim that as a chance, because he was not out, period!

Michael wrote: Sorry, but I never claimed to be a hard core follower or a critic like yourself.
Doesn't mean i cannot have an opinion!

And you can't claim that as a chance, because he was not out, period!

God is an Englishman wrote:

Michael wrote: Sorry, but I never claimed to be a hard core follower or a critic like yourself.
Doesn't mean i cannot have an opinion!

And you can't claim that as a chance, because he was not out, period!

All not taken chance are not out. Otherwise they're be more than just chances.

You can have an opinion but when they're ridiculous and show how you don't follow cricket then expect them to be ridiculed.

England fear Ben Stokes may not bowl again in this Ashes series after their talismanic all-rounder suffered an injury scare at Old Trafford on Thursday.

Stokes managed to bowl less than three overs on day two of the fourth Ashes Test before leaving the field part way through his third, wincing, and with soreness in his right shoulder.

Having been hit for 30 runs off 17 balls, he returned to the field a few overs later but did not bowl again as Australia amassed 497 runs.

Stokes’ sudden withdrawal have prompted concerns that he might not bowl again in the current series as the fitness of the host’s frontline bowlers continues to cause problems. James Anderson has already had to withdraw from the series having bowled just four overs in the first Test.

"As far as I'm concerned if it was very, very serious he wouldn't have retaken the field," said Jonny Bairstow at the close of play. "We know what a character Ben is, how strong he is mentally and physically. I'm sure it'll be assessed overnight but as of this moment in time I genuinely don't know [how bad it is]."

In the last Test, before Stokes’ Herculean century, the Durham all-rounder bowled more than 24 overs in Australia’s second innings. All but two of these were bowled consecutively, and in total he delivered eight more than any other England bowler.

Stokes’ injury follows a warning by Shane Warne earlier this summer that he was at risk from burnout. Before the World Cup, the former Australian spinner advised that he should be used as a batsman first and bowler only second.

"If I was in charge of England I would bat him as high up the order as possible to give him as much time at the crease as possible," advised Warne. "He could then bat like a batsman. But do not rely on him for ten overs [of bowling]. I would say just take wickets, bowl in short bursts and don’t worry about conceding runs."

Stokes’ absence could be crucial in deciding this series, as Australia only need to draw this Test to retain the urn. With Stokes potentially out of England’s attack and Steve Smith on the back of a double-century in the first innings, England start the third day 474 runs behind with nine wickets remaining.

Michael wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:

All not taken chance are not out. Otherwise they're be more than just chances.

You can have an opinion but when they're ridiculous and show how you don't follow cricket then expect them to be ridiculed.

pfft, luckily I don't care what you and your cohorts think.

Go ahead and ridicule, if that make you happy

Michael wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:

Michael wrote: Sorry, but I never claimed to be a hard core follower or a critic like yourself.
Doesn't mean i cannot have an opinion!

And you can't claim that as a chance, because he was not out, period!

All not taken chance are not out. Otherwise they're be more than just chances.

You can have an opinion but when they're ridiculous and show how you don't follow cricket then expect them to be ridiculed.

pfft, luckily I don't care what you and your cohorts think.

Go ahead and ridicule, if that make you happy

Michael wrote:Looks like the Poms in more

Bomber wrote:Back to the cricket, this is a huge day for england. If they can put on a good day and a half of batting, they could save this test meaning it will most likely be a draw and go down to the final test. If Australia can get them out under 350, then I think we will go on to win, weather permitting.

As for Smith, I thought Archer had his measure?

Cooper

It was a chance and they missed it.

God is an Englishman wrote:

Michael wrote:Looks like the Poms in more

why are you always so racist?

MegaBonus wrote:

Cooper

It was a chance and they missed it.

no...not a chance as it was an illegal delivery

MegaBonus wrote:

Cooper

It was a chance and they missed it.

no...not a chance as it was an illegal delivery

Cooper wrote:

MegaBonus wrote:

Cooper

It was a chance and they missed it.

no...not a chance as it was an illegal delivery

You really don't understand what a chance is do you? Think about it and try again.

Well done Aussies we retain the Ashes, but please do not play Warner next game, he has been an embarrassment. If he does play just start us on 0/1 and give Broad the wicket.

Pooraka Sałt wrote:

Cooper wrote:

MegaBonus wrote:
no...not a chance as it was an illegal delivery

You really don't understand what a chance is do you? Think about it and try again.

Well done Aussies we retain the Ashes, but please do not play Warner next game, he has been an embarrassment. If he does play just start us on 0/1 and give Broad the wicket.

How was it a chance?

Michael wrote:You serious?

it was an "ILLEGAL" delivery, the fact that it was caught should not even be mentioned.
That takes Precedent, end of.

Cooper wrote:

Michael wrote:You serious?

it was an "ILLEGAL" delivery, the fact that it was caught should not even be mentioned.
That takes Precedent, end of.

It was a chance that was missed by an error just the same as all other chances.

Pooraka Sałt wrote:

Cooper wrote:

Michael wrote:You serious?

it was an "ILLEGAL" delivery, the fact that it was caught should not even be mentioned.
That takes Precedent, end of.

It was a chance that was missed by an error just the same as all other chances.

The error came first. What happens after that is academical.

Bomber wrote:Last 9 ashes matches, 6 wins, 2 draws, one narrow loss. Clearly one team is better.

God is an Englishman wrote:

Bomber wrote:Last 9 ashes matches, 6 wins, 2 draws, one narrow loss. Clearly one team is better.

All we know so far is that you are better in Australian conditions. In a week we will know the answer in English conditions.

Frank Costanza wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:

Bomber wrote:Last 9 ashes matches, 6 wins, 2 draws, one narrow loss. Clearly one team is better.

All we know so far is that you are better in Australian conditions. In a week we will know the answer in English conditions.

Well either we will be considered better or it will be neutral - based on that logic England currently aren't better than Australia in Test match cricket in any conditions