***Official*** Pakistan and England in UAE

[Howe_zat]

"How original", in case you're as dense as you're pretending to be, was in response to the playground gambit the poster I was responding to had used, which can be summed up thusly: CWB304 has strong opinions against Bell as a batsman, ergo Bell must have slept with CWB304's wife/mother/pet etc. Pretty juvenile, for mine. I should have expected rather more in the way of wit from a whole "Cricket Web Staff Member". Good on you for rushing to the defence of your colleague: such esprit de corps is always commendable.

As for other opinions, I've made posts on three or four other threads. Try reading them; you might learn something.

I can only hope you last as long as it takes you to successfully flame everyone.

Godspeed.

 

[Faisal1985]

Jeez......can't imagine what's going to happen to this thread after we white wash England in tests, ODIs and T20s.......

 

[Jacknife]

"How original", in case you're as dense as you're pretending to be, was in response to the playground gambit the poster I was responding to had used, which can be summed up thusly: CWB304 has strong opinions against Bell as a batsman, ergo Bell must have slept with CWB304's wife/mother/pet etc. Pretty juvenile, for mine. I should have expected rather more in the way of wit from a whole "Cricket Web Staff Member". Good on you for rushing to the defence of your colleague: such esprit de corps is always commendable.

As for other opinions, I've made posts on three or four other threads. Try reading them; you might learn something.

As far as learning something from you, sure if I wanted to learn that Bell failed against Warne and McGrath when he played against them years ago and since then hasn't faced a good attack, well cheers for the lesson.

 

[Furball]

"How original", in case you're as dense as you're pretending to be, was in response to the playground gambit the poster I was responding to had used, which can be summed up thusly: CWB304 has strong opinions against Bell as a batsman, ergo Bell must have slept with CWB304's wife/mother/pet etc. Pretty juvenile, for mine. I should have expected rather more in the way of wit from a whole "Cricket Web Staff Member". Good on you for rushing to the defence of your colleague: such esprit de corps is always commendable.

As for other opinions, I've made posts on three or four other threads. Try reading them; you might learn something.

 

[fredfertang]

I can only hope you last as long as it takes you to successfully flame everyone.

Godspeed.

I was expecting you to use that gif you always post when I troll you

 

[Howe_zat]

I was expecting you to use that gif you always post when I troll you

That's for special occasions. I'm fairly sure they filmed that scene of The Wire solely to tell loud Lank gits where to shove it. It's a niche market over the pond, true, but they do their research.

 

[fredfertang]

That's for special occasions. I'm fairly sure they filmed that scene of The Wire solely to tell loud Lank gits where to shove it. It's a niche market over the pond, true, but they do their research.

I can see you getting called out for giving special treatment to fellow staff members again

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Haha, you stole Spikey's image.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Aaaaanyway.

Paper today reckon Finn for Tremmers. Monty has to be a shout to replace the big fella tho, IMHO. Not sure the UAE pitches will suit our line bowlers. If we went for a third seamer I'd say Onions fuller length and skiddy trajectory would make him the best option.

Monty for me tho.

 

[Furball]

Haha, you stole Spikey's image.

 

[CWB304]

I can only hope you last as long as it takes you to successfully flame everyone.

Godspeed.

I haven't flamed anyone, and have no intention of doing so. When someone is out of order - as you were in backing up another poster's childish barbs to the effect that the only reason I am critical of Bell is that he must have slept with my wife/mother/pet (ha ha) - I call them on it, and move on. IMO you had no business in getting involved in that particular exchange, particularly as a "Cricket Web Staff Member" (whatever that means). Apart from that I've no issue with you - or anyone else.

 

[CWB304]

Aaaaanyway.

Paper today reckon Finn for Tremmers. Monty has to be a shout to replace the big fella tho, IMHO. Not sure the UAE pitches will suit our line bowlers. If we went for a third seamer I'd say Onions fuller length and skiddy trajectory would make him the best option.

Monty for me tho.

It should be either Finn or Monty for me. The decision should be based on whether Finn's extra pace is likely to cause more problems to the two main Pakistan batting threats Younis and Misbah than the additional spin option of Monty affords in all round benefits. In my opinion Finn just shades it. I'm surprised you should be pushing forward Onions. IMO there ought to be some integrity in the system, or guys like Finn will become demoralised. Onion came in as cover for Bresnan; he shouldn't leapfrog a guy like Finn who was already there.

 

[Howe_zat]

I haven't flamed anyone, and have no intention of doing so. When someone is out of order - as you were in backing up another poster's childish barbs to the effect that the only reason I am critical of Bell is that he must have slept with my wife/mother/pet (ha ha) - I call them on it, and move on. IMO you had no business in getting involved in that particular exchange, particularly as a "Cricket Web Staff Member" (whatever that means). Apart from that I've no issue with you - or anyone else.

Okey doke. If I must be serious, here goes:

I wasn't attempting to get involved, or defend marc, as forum camaraderie between staff members as a group doesn't exist and has never existed as long as I've been here, as any forumer will tell you. Your post asserting that such a thing does exist is rather akin to your earlier assessment of Burgey's post to you, and is the sort of Leroy Jenkins manouvre that gets you laughed at rather than earns you respect.

Indeed, I hadn't actually noticed it was marc you were arguing with/insulting until you pointed it out. My posts to you have been simply me being silly. No more, no less.

I suppose you could say that I was "getting involved" in a general attempt to lighten the mood. You may not consider yourself to be flaming, but your ludicrously aggressive style is very unlikely to win you friends. Clearly that's not your aim here, and I personally don't mind in the slightest. I find you to be unintentionally entertaining, extremely so.

So go nuts, I guess. Though if you'd like to get people on your side, it might not be the best idea to continue as you are.

G'night for now.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Lol, I know it's a popular meme, but I have only seen Spikey use it on here.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

I think we can all agree that Ian Bell looks like a water vole.

 

[marc71178]

"How original", in case you're as dense as you're pretending to be, was in response to the playground gambit the poster I was responding to had used, which can be summed up thusly: CWB304 has strong opinions against Bell as a batsman, ergo Bell must have slept with CWB304's wife/mother/pet etc. Pretty juvenile, for mine. I should have expected rather more in the way of wit from a whole "Cricket Web Staff Member". Good on you for rushing to the defence of your colleague: such esprit de corps is always commendable.

As for other opinions, I've made posts on three or four other threads. Try reading them; you might learn something.

The thing is you're completely revising history to suggest that this is the first good attack Bell's played in the last 2 years. In fact I'd suggest it's far from the best attack he's had to play against in that timescale, thus rendering your entire argument meaningless.

Since your argument is meaningless I thought I'd try to find out what exactly Ian Bell had done to you to cause you to post such a heap of tripe. Clearly I was barking up the wrong tree with my initial thoughts so maybe you could tell us what it is he's done to make you post said tripe?

 

[Jacknife]

I think we can all agree that Ian Bell looks like a water vole.

At last we're talking some sense.

 

[Pothas]

Aaaaanyway.

Paper today reckon Finn for Tremmers. Monty has to be a shout to replace the big fella tho, IMHO. Not sure the UAE pitches will suit our line bowlers. If we went for a third seamer I'd say Onions fuller length and skiddy trajectory would make him the best option.

Monty for me tho.

CWB304 is just too good, think we should all admit defeat.

Massive fan of Tremlett but have a good feeling about Finn especially if he can maintain that pace he has shown of late. Is an awful cliche but he just gets wickets. Would not complain if they picked Monty but it won't happen.

 

[Jacknife]

CWB304 is just too good, think we should all admit defeat.

Massive fan of Tremlett but have a good feeling about Finn especially if he can maintain that pace he has shown of late. Is an awful cliche but he just gets wickets. Would not complain if they picked Monty but it won't happen.

Yes, the key to bowling Finn would be short spells of say 3 overs so he could maintain his pace, use him as a strike bowler, saying that it will be hard if the wickets are going to be even flatter.

 

[Pothas]

It should be either Finn or Monty for me. The decision should be based on whether Finn's extra pace is likely to cause more problems to the two main Pakistan batting threats Younis and Misbah than the additional spin option of Monty affords in all round benefits. In my opinion Finn just shades it. I'm surprised you should be pushing forward Onions. IMO there ought to be some integrity in the system, or guys like Finn will become demoralised. Onion came in as cover for Bresnan; he shouldn't leapfrog a guy like Finn who was already there.

Surely it is just as demoralising for Onions if he feels he has no way of forcing his way into the side. Think you have to trust those who are in charge on tour and give them the freedom to pick from anyone in the squad. Let's not forget that Finn himself made his debut after jumping ahead of a couple of guys already on tour. I would not be tempted to pick Onions personally but that fact he was no in the original squad is no reason to exclude him, traveled with the original party anyway didn't he?