• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    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, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

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

Group C - New Zealand, England, Kenya, Canada

legglancer12

School Boy/Girl Captain
If there's one thing I've learned since coming to the UK, it's that UK commentators only comment on UK players. When Bond got a hattrick and when he passed 100 wickets they still completely left him out during the post-match pundit talks.

I remember the days when commentary teams discussed both teams, oh I do...

Not unlike NZ commentators ..... IMO :laugh:
 

KiWiNiNjA

International Coach
Off topic again but Kallis just got 3 6's off last 3 balls of the innings.

And Boucher a mere 75 off 31 (quicker than Gibbs' 70 odd) :eek:
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
I don't know, a lot of Taylor's best innings in his short career have been based on a slow start. I think in his first hundred against Sri Lanka, he had only 2 after about 20 balls.
That was batting first, though.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Richard, honestly, when you get in this mode it really is quite silly. If you're not prepared take someone who watched his entire career's word for it then I can't see the point in continuing the argument.
(That doesn't mean you've won the argument btw, it just means I'm bored with your stubbornness)
I'm not prepared to take the word of the human eye - how much of the bowling that eye has watched is not important.

I wish someone could give us some conclusive evidence.
 

Fiery

Banned
I'm not prepared to take the word of the human eye - how much of the bowling that eye has watched is not important.

I wish someone could give us some conclusive evidence.
I don't use this emoticon at all having read this book that was recommended, (thanks pasag), but here it is:

8-)
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Jeez, you know the bowling is bad when Kallis scores at quicker than a run a ball.
Or that he's just not playing seriously.

Haven't watched anything other than the odd stroke from that game but I'd imagine it'd be the same as that Zimbabwe series a little while ago.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
So do most - but it doesn't enable it to accurately determine the speed of a cricket ball.
 

Natman20

International Debutant
I know that the optic nerve attaches it to the brain
I sometimes watch some bowlers like Bond bowl and think wow that was quick and it sometimes is around 130 kph instead of 142-46. Don't trust your eyes. I thought mine were perfectly fine until I went to the optomotrist :)
 

Fiery

Banned
I sometimes watch some bowlers like Bond bowl and think wow that was quick and it sometimes is around 130 kph instead of 142-46. Don't trust your eyes. I thought mine were perfectly fine until I went to the optomotrist :)
Thanks for the advice but mine are good. I trust them implicitly...they help me with things like driving
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
You're talking about the movement the roll-eyes is able to produce right?
Well it is truly remarkable by the standards of vBulletin forums, yeah. No other smiley has such a high standard of eye-movement.
 

Top