Cricketweb's 5 most unfairly treated players

[Zinzan]

Yeah I know, I was just playing on the thread title

Haha, should've picked up on the smiley

 

[zaremba]

Monty Panesar, definitely

 

[BoyBrumby]

Monty Panesar, definitely

Ha, I didn't even need to check cricinfo for confirmation.

 

[Richard]

It's only 'nonsense', as you call it, because you initially said something which was pretty much wrong. Other people piped up and argued against that point and now you changed your mind and said "Oh I meant to say this instead".

I think it is you who deserves the rolleyes Mr Dickinson.

I didn't change my mind at all - in fact I've said moreorless exactly what I actually meant (ie, had he not played the result probably wouldn't have been different in any series' of his apart from West Indies 2002) several times before on CW down the years. Yes all right fair enough what I appeared to be saying does indeed deserve arguing against because if I'd said that it would be fairly ridiculous for the reasons pointed-out in the zaremba post. But the nonsense derived from a fairly simple misunderstanding, not because I "said something that was wrong".

 

[Richard]

And BTW I forgot to reply to this earlier...

Richard has improved on Bondy though. I remember reading threads from 04 where he claimed Bond didn't swing the ball and wouldn't be much of a force.

There's one that we can actually be fair to him and say he changed his mind.

I never actually said "Bond clearly can't swing the red ball", I merely suggested it as a possibility as to why he might have had so little serious success in Tests (remember this was 2004 and all he'd done at that point was be completely unsuccessful in Australia, destroy India on decks that couldn't be more helpful to seam if you tried, played a massive part in a victory in West Indies [where the ball doesn't normally swing much BTW] and then struggled in Sri Lanka though apparently through no little ill-fortune) compared to ODIs.

I was puzzled as to Bond's lack of Test success, and was attempting to find possible reasons. Naturally, given prevailing attitudes, which are still present 5 years later in certain individuals, the opportunity to reply to what certain posters would like to have been written rather than what was was snatched upon.

 

[Flem274*]

And BTW I forgot to reply to this earlier...

I never actually said "Bond clearly can't swing the red ball", I merely suggested it as a possibility as to why he might have had so little serious success in Tests (remember this was 2004 and all he'd done at that point was be completely unsuccessful in Australia, destroy India on decks that couldn't be more helpful to seam if you tried, played a massive part in a victory in West Indies [where the ball doesn't normally swing much BTW] and then struggled in Sri Lanka though apparently through no little ill-fortune) compared to ODIs.

I was puzzled as to Bond's lack of Test success, and was attempting to find possible reasons. Naturally, given prevailing attitudes, which are still present 5 years later in certain individuals, the opportunity to reply to what certain posters would like to have been written rather than what was was snatched upon.

"Prevailing attitudes" huh? I would hope you realise I have better people to annoy than you. (like DingDong, much more fun).

 

[Richard]

No no, wasn't referring to you, can't say I've ever seen you deliberately try to work a post up into something it isn't. Those who did such a thing back in 2004 are almost all different to those who do it in 2009 (though there is one constant there), but it's kept happening.

 

[Zinzan]

No no, wasn't referring to you, can't say I've ever seen you deliberately try to work a post up into something it isn't. Those who did such a thing back in 2004 are almost all different to those who do it in 2009 (though there is one constant there), but it's kept happening.

Lol, If you're referring to me, and I'm guessing you are, I can't see how my objecting to your comment that Bond's contribution in that 1st WI test in 2006 wasn't critical to NZ's victory is making something out of nothing. Particularly given all & sundry jumped on you for exactly the same point, without ONE single poster agreeing with your totally warped take on it.

If you're going to continue making outrageous nonsensical statements like this one, then expect objections & arguments to the contrary rather than sulking & making underhanded comments that such & such mystery poster is working up your post's to be something it wasn't mean't to be.

 

[JimmyGS]

If you're going to continue making outrageous nonsensical statements like this one, then expect objections & arguments to the contrary rather than sulking & making underhanded comments that such & such mystery poster is working up your post's to be something it wasn't mean't to be.

It's quite a bazarre feeling when someone else puts your opinion into better words than you ever could.

 

[Richard]

Lol, If you're referring to me, and I'm guessing you are

No, wasn't really referring to you, but comments like this:

your totally warped take on it.

don't do you much credit on the matter, and are in fact KaZoH0lic-esque.

In fact the above post referred largely to the fact that this happened on one occasion in 2004, not any recent occurrance (though as I also said, such a thing has - not surprisingly, given posters come and go down the years - continued to happen).

If you're going to continue making outrageous nonsensical statements like this one, then expect objections & arguments to the contrary rather than sulking & making underhanded comments that such & such mystery poster is working up your post's to be something it wasn't mean't to be.

No mystery about it - most people know full well who said posters are, though it'd probably be against forum rules for me to actually post specific names on-forum, so thus I refrain from doing so.

 

[Richard]

It's quite a bazarre feeling when someone else puts your opinion into better words than you ever could.

Anyone who shares the opinion that such posters are "mystery" really hasn't read this forum very well.

 

[Zinzan]

Anyone who shares the opinion that such posters are "mystery" really hasn't read this forum very well.

I stand to be corrected, but I suspect he was agreeing with the general point that, if one makes such outrageous nonsensical statements then one should expect to be called on it.

 

[DingDong]

"Prevailing attitudes" huh? I would hope you realise I have better people to annoy than you. (like DingDong, much more fun).

huh just exactly is that supposed to mean? and please stop picking on richard. he knows a lot about the game ok. i think his and my posts are almost carbon copies. it's funny how similar posters we are.

just cool it ok.

 

[Richard]

I stand to be corrected, but I suspect he was agreeing with the general point that, if one makes such outrageous nonsensical statements then one should expect to be called on it.

If so, it's such an obvious point that one wonders why anyone would bother making it, less still agreeing.

 

[Zinzan]

If so, it's such an obvious point that one wonders why anyone would bother making it, less still agreeing.

Ironic point coming from someone who's definition of what's 'obvious' is so often called into question

 

[GIMH]

well this has turned into a fun thread

 

[Richard]

Ironic point coming from someone who's definition of what's 'obvious' is so often called into question

Not really.

 

[Richard]

well this has turned into a fun thread

Was basically always going to be the way. This thread is essentially one designed to say "let's have lots of people deliberately post things that we know full well are going to engender a non-corroborative response from a whole load of different people". It was always going to turn-out thus, and that's neither a surprise nor a particular disappointment.

 

[GIMH]

well this has turned into a fun thread

ind33d

 

[DingDong]

Was basically always going to be the way. This thread is essentially one designed to say "let's have lots of people deliberately post things that we know full well are going to engender a non-corroborative response from a whole load of different people". It was always going to turn-out thus, and that's neither a surprise nor a particular disappointment.

geez what does that even mean???