Johnners
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Heh, so a guy who had an an ordinary season in a 2nd tier first class competition deserves a spot on a test tour....now I've heard everything.
-
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.
*Official* England in Bangladesh
- Thread starter James
- Start date
GIMH
Norwood's on Fire
The endless multi-quoting just causes me to scroll past some posts that I probably would read. I love seeing opinions I disagree with, that's not the issue. It's the masses and masses of endless txt that just makes a thread unreadable. IMO it's not good for forum atmopshere.
four_or_six
Cricketer Of The Year
Apparently Shazhad has impressed Flower et al with his net bowling and also during practice out in the middle.
four_or_six
Cricketer Of The Year
Jimmy Anderson is ugly and talentless.
GIMH
Norwood's on Fire
you bounder, you cheat!
Jungle Jumbo
International Vice-Captain
Why do people feel the need to respond though (not you, GIMH, others). If someone's posting style/arguments/general attitude is particularly disruptive or of poor taste, just put said poster on ignore. If lots of people choose ignore, there are no more massive multiquote arguments.
aussie
Hall of Fame Member
Good job continuing the miss the point & understand the dynamics of English frist class cricket...now i have seen everything..
Scaly piscine
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Yes the dynamics being everyone is **** regardless of averages, only the wisdom of a numpty who thinks Scott Parker makes everyone else look like Carlton Palmer can decide otherwise.
aussie
Hall of Fame Member
No the dynamics being all averages in English domestic cricket can't be taken on face value - sometimes you need to be back raw ability & not be robotic in selection.
20 years of generally mediocre performances in ODIs (while being hot & cold in tests) should tell us fans & the selectors this quite clearly.
Its better than this dumpty who thinks Blackwell should be on this tour, that Onions is better than Anderson or that Davies bowled the same pace as McGrath in his last days
Last edited:
aussie
Hall of Fame Member
Haaa its funny how such suggestion are being thrown around given that i'm being involved in many mult-quote debates in cricket chat of late. But when back in the days posters like Richard, TEC, C_C, FaaipDeoid where basically at it every minute along with myself it was never a problem..Clear double standard ATM
Or Maybe our players were just not good enough....
Craig
World Traveller
Actually when Richard and TEC went on their quote wars, IIRC, must people just gave up on the thread. They even had their own thread created.
Clear double standard ATM
GIMH
Norwood's on Fire
Before my time, but I've read tonnes of people complaining about them.
Clear double standard ATM
Your enthusiasm is fine even if I find some of your opinions bizarre, it's the fact that you feel the need to disect each post sentence by sentence to argue with it. I'm really not trying to have an unnecessary go at you, but when a thread descends into that it becomes unreadable. Especially if someone joins in and argues with you point by point. Please, for the love of CC, stop breaking quotes down so endlessly. It is perfectly possible for people to understand your point without you doing that.
You could, for example try:
Firstly, regarding Anderson and Onions....
Secondly, as for your suggestion regarding Blackwell...
And the thread would be much more readable for all concerned.
zaremba
Cricketer Of The Year
49.00 ftr
aussie
Hall of Fame Member
This is second time in this week i've heard this crap from somehone & i'm not having a go at you neither. But how come suddenly disecting a post using the quote=poster + /quote features has become unreadable????.
Thats madness AFAIC since when other people have done it in my 5 years of this site i follow the discussion is quite fine. Of course a simple quote vs quote is less trouble on the eyes, but the main reason people disect quotes is because a poster may make separate points that you may feel the need to break down - thus you use the quote=poster + /quote.
Last edited:
GIMH
Norwood's on Fire
I don't want to sidetrack the thread by getting into a long discussion about this because it would ultimately be hypocritical. So I'll make this my final word on it and after that I'll leave it 
Basically, if you multi-quote one post, okay, fine. But then it turns into eighteen or nineteen posts in a row from different posters of pure multi-quote. It takes forever to read or even takes ages just to scroll through. It's horrible on the eye and I just see it as over-indulgent.
And as I said in my previous post, I find that it is easy enough to argue with all of a person's points without breaking their quote down. If they have made four points in their post, surely it is easy enough to just quote them and break it down like follows:
1. Anderson -
2. Standard of Division 2 -
or something like that, do you see what I mean?
As I said, it's up to you if you want to take this on board and I won't be mentioning it again, I have tried my best to be constructive here though
Basically, if you multi-quote one post, okay, fine. But then it turns into eighteen or nineteen posts in a row from different posters of pure multi-quote. It takes forever to read or even takes ages just to scroll through. It's horrible on the eye and I just see it as over-indulgent.
And as I said in my previous post, I find that it is easy enough to argue with all of a person's points without breaking their quote down. If they have made four points in their post, surely it is easy enough to just quote them and break it down like follows:
1. Anderson -
2. Standard of Division 2 -
or something like that, do you see what I mean?
As I said, it's up to you if you want to take this on board and I won't be mentioning it again, I have tried my best to be constructive here though
aussie
Hall of Fame Member
Yes because when they where picked based on their high domestic averages or season performances many of them looked like joke in international cricket. But then would continue to be successful for years in domestic cricket after being exposed in international cricket i.e Hick, Ealham, Ramprakash, all the bits a pieces all-rounders who played ODI cricket, Salisbury, Brown, Crawley, Loye, Blackwell....look the list is endless from the last 20 years for both tests & ODIs
aussie
Hall of Fame Member
Well yea i do that sometimes. It basically depends on the lenght post the poster would make, thus me or anyone else in a discussion can decide whether they want to use to quote feautre of that the 1, 2, 3 point route...I don't want to sidetrack the thread by getting into a long discussion about this because it would ultimately be hypocritical. So I'll make this my final word on it and after that I'll leave it
Basically, if you multi-quote one post, okay, fine. But then it turns into eighteen or nineteen posts in a row from different posters of pure multi-quote. It takes forever to read or even takes ages just to scroll through. It's horrible on the eye and I just see it as over-indulgent.
And as I said in my previous post, I find that it is easy enough to argue with all of a person's points without breaking their quote down. If they have made four points in their post, surely it is easy enough to just quote them and break it down like follows:
1. Anderson -
2. Standard of Division 2 -
or something like that, do you see what I mean?
As I said, it's up to you if you want to take this on board and I won't be mentioning it again, I have tried my best to be constructive here though
I prefer the quote feature personally & always have since i think its slightly quicker. But i'll try the 1,2,3 point style a bit more since it seems to be & odd problem with some here..
zaremba
Cricketer Of The Year
I know why you do it - I've done it myself from time to time.This is second time in this week i've heard this crap from somehone & i'm not having a go at you neither. But how come suddenly disecting a post using the quote=poster + /quote features has become unreadable????.
Thats madness AFAIC since when other people have done it in my 5 years of this site i follow the discussion is quite fine. Of course a simple quote vs quote is less trouble on the eyes, but the main reason people disect quotes is because a poster may make separate points that you may feel the need to break down - thus you use the quote=poster + /quote.
My thinking these days is, if I find myself tempted to multi-quote, alarm bells should ring on two fronts:
(a) it's a sign that I'm getting sucked too deeply into an endless one-on-one debate and
(b) if I give into the temptation to multi-quote I can be sure that no-one else is going to bother reading it, except (perhaps) for the person I'm arguing with.