This part of the forum is richer for my contributions and you know it.Time has come to ban Sledger from Cricket Chat.
Why on earth would they do that?I know exactly what he meant and I don't buy it. It's a bunch of rubbish the ICC has come up with to allow chuckers to continue chucking.
Join the movement Jono.Time has come to ban Sledger from Cricket Chat.
The ICC clearly buckled under the intense financial pressure put on them by SLC to cover the whole thing up and change the rules for MuraliWhy on earth would they do that?
Boycott is quite vocal on this point. You can hear the fear in Agnew's voice if Murali is mentioned whilst commentating together.The ICC clearly buckled under the intense financial pressure put on them by SLC to cover the whole thing up and change the rules for Murali
One wonders if he would have ended up holding the record for most wickets had the rules not be changed. One suspects he would not have, tbh.The ICC clearly buckled under the intense financial pressure put on them by SLC to cover the whole thing up and change the rules for Murali
It's this sort of bull**** that stops issues like this from being properly discussed though. It's the proverbial elephant in the room. If people believe an action to be bull****, then let them call bowlers out on it.Boycott is quite vocal on this point. You can hear the fear in Agnew's voice if Murali is mentioned whilst commentating together.
The rule change was good though. This is like saying Obama never would've become POTUS if they didn't abolish slavery. Sure it might be true but it shouldn't tarnish his achievements, because the old law was ****.One wonders if he would have ended up holding the record for most wickets had the rules not be changed. One suspects he would not have, tbh.
Goddamn it man, why are you responding to me seriously?! That post was meant to attract mouth-breathers.The rule change was good though. This is like saying Obama never would've become POTUS if they didn't abolish slavery. Sure it might be true but it shouldn't tarnish his achievements, because the old law was ****.
Given my other option was to give you an infraction, you shouldn't be complaining.Goddamn it man, why are you responding to me seriously?!
We need to change the infraction rules so there's a 15 degree margin of appreciation imo.Given my other option was to give you an infraction, you shouldn't be complaining.
Who was leading wicket taker at the time?? Whoever it was would still hold the record and we'd all have been following a different sport for the last decade whilst reminiscing on how much we used to enjoy cricket.One wonders if he would have ended up holding the record for most wickets had the rules not be changed. One suspects he would not have, tbh.
Wasn't it Chris Schofield?It was Alex Tudor iirc.