***Official*** New Zealand in the West Indies 2014

[sledger]

I love all these excuses based on a "weak" WI attack. As if they've had anything other than a weak attack for the past 15 years. What a joke.

 

[WindieWeathers]

You have a very selective memory.

After the First Test was dire. After the Second Test was still dire. Before the series was dire. The in-play discussion whenever it got above "oooh nice shot" has been dire. I've said as much every step of the ****ing way.

Don't turn this into yet another nationalistic argument.


WW, you continue this line of argument and you get 8 points. You're incredibly lucky that I'm not straight-up giving you 5 for trolling.
NZers, you respond to this argument with counter-nationalism and you get 8 points as well. Don't assume that my love of Kane Williamson means I'm going to be soft on infractions.

At the begining there was lively debates about who was "better" between individual players like Bravo vs Williamson, Taylor vs Chanders etc..and there were some utterly outragous claims being made by others like "Taylor better than Shiv" etc..so naturally i put my views across. Nothing i said during that time broke the rules did it?

After the first test i wrote a long post congratulating NZ and also bemoaning my own teams performance. A few days later i predicted that "WI were gonna ask NZ some serious questions in the second test"....many came at me swinging but i'm not one to say "i told you so".

As for "in play discussion"... you're free to look back...i've barely participated on that front.

Then we come to after this second test and people jumped on my back for my opinion on the Shiv lbw's...and if there truly are ANY occasions where i've offended people or tried to "troll" then you're welcome to show me..because i can't recall that happening.....i've laughed at blockys brash statements...but i can't help that as it's funny.

I just feel like some people still can't let my past go...everything i say i try to be factual here....but people seem to get offended by that..but i take the warning on board and will try to address the concerns.

 

[sledger]

This is a joke, right?

 

[ImpatientLime]

I still can't work out if you're a full time troll or the least self aware person on the internet.

 

[BeeGee]

At the begining there was lively debates about who was "better" between individual players like Bravo vs Williamson, Taylor vs Chanders etc..and there were some utterly outragous claims being made by others like "Taylor better than Shiv" etc..so naturally i put my views across. Nothing i said during that time broke the rules did it?

After the first test i wrote a long post congratulating NZ and also bemoaning my own teams performance. A few days later i predicted that "WI were gonna ask NZ some serious questions in the second test"....many came at me swinging but i'm not one to say "i told you so".

As for "in play discussion"... you're free to look back...i've barely participated on that front.

Then we come to after this second test and people jumped on my back for my opinion on the Shiv lbw's...and if there truly are ANY occasions where i've offended people or tried to "troll" then you're welcome to show me..because i can't recall that happening.....i've laughed at blockys brash statements...but i can't help that as it's funny.

I just feel like some people still can't let my past go...everything i say i try to be factual here....but people seem to get offended by that..but i take the warning on board and will try to address the concerns.

This post is quiet frankly a ****ing disgrace. I've had enough of this ****.

 

[Slifer]

Only 50/50? You'd be 70/30 for mine. Taylor and Roach as dangerous as they've been, Benn being parsimonious and having Narine at the other end flummoxing people, our guys wouldn't have the technique or the mental tools to work through it on the type of decks being played on.

Awta !!!

I hate the IPL with a passion but the WICB have gone far further than cutting off their nose to spite their face. I'm sure yourself, WW and other posters know the ins and outs far better than me but with in a region/national team where cricket is not necessarily the #1 option any longer, creating blanket rules that inhibit players from seeking opportunities to maximise their wealth doesn't strike me as a wonderful idea.

Awta

 

[WindieWeathers]

The issue has been settled guys...now lets get back to talking about this great contest this series is turning out to be.

 

[sledger]

It'd be less of a contest if NZ were at full strength, I think.

 

[GGG]

Some one is saying on cricinfo comments section that Hesson has said that Rutherford is going to be opening in the next test, I can't find anything official, I am going to take it with a grain of salt until I read something official.

 

[Blocky]

I really don't see the problem with WW's posting style. He's not openly abusing anyone, he's stating his point and even if his point is wrong, he's willing to actually back up what he thinks.

Do I agree with him? Absolutely not. But I think it's a case of handbags at dawn around people getting upset with his posting style, especially considering he seems to be the one being abused all the time by others without really lashing out in return.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Woo! Woo! Palm Singing!

On leaving he said "If I was smart I'd stay away from this thread"

 

[Howsie]

At the begining there was lively debates about who was "better" between individual players like Bravo vs Williamson, Taylor vs Chanders etc..and there were some utterly outragous claims being made by others like "Taylor better than Shiv"

Taylor and Roach better then Southee and Boult. Some outragous claims indeed.

 

[Blocky]

Taylor and Roach better then Southee and Boult. Some outragous claims indeed.

Right, yet when I point out that on paper and recent performance, NZ is the much stronger side, I'm told that's outrageous.

You can't have it both ways. You can't be on my case for pointing out that us losing is more about application rather than talent, then get on his case for talking up the Windies talent.

 

[WindieWeathers]

Taylor and Roach better then Southee and Boult. Some outragous claims indeed.

No i actually said they "match" them...but hey it's over now so lets move forward.

 

[WindieWeathers]

I really don't see the problem with WW's posting style. He's not openly abusing anyone, he's stating his point and even if his point is wrong, he's willing to actually back up what he thinks.

Do I agree with him? Absolutely not. But I think it's a case of handbags at dawn around people getting upset with his posting style, especially considering he seems to be the one being abused all the time by others without really lashing out in return.

We don't often agree Blocky but i simply cannot dispute anything you've said there .

 

[sledger]

No i actually said they "match" them...but hey it's over now so lets move forward.

If you really wanted to move forward I doubt you'd keep quoting posts that reference it tbh.

 

[WindieWeathers]

Yeah, let's all move forward by repeatedly quoting posts and talking about it.

If someone makes a wrong claim regarding my posts i'm entitled to respond...sorry if you're offended.

 

[hendrix]

Right, yet when I point out that on paper and recent performance, NZ is the much stronger side, I'm told that's outrageous.

You can't have it both ways. You can't be on my case for pointing out that us losing is more about application rather than talent, then get on his case for talking up the Windies talent.

Umm yes we can?

 

[Howsie]

No i actually said they "match" them...but hey it's over now so lets move forward.

You didn't FTR. You said while both Southee and Boult had been good over the past two years (while at the same time trying to pick holes at their records) long term you'd go with Taylor and Roach.

It was outragous to suggest Williamson was a better batsman then Bravo in your opinion, you were quick to bring up their respective career records. Yet, at the same time, you had no problem taking Taylor over Boult. The same Taylor who hadn't played a test match in almost five years and had a test record in the mid 30's.

 

[WindieWeathers]

You didn't FTR. You said while both Southee and Boult had been good over the past two years (while at the same time trying to pick holes at their records) long term you'd go with Taylor and Roach.

It was outragous to suggest Williamson was a better batsman then Bravo in your opinion, you were quick to bring up their respective career records. Yet, at the same time, you had no problem taking Taylor over Boult. The same Taylor who hadn't played a test match in almost five years and had a test record in the mid 30's.

Care to quote me? because i'm pretty sure i said Roach and Taylor can "match" Southee and Boult...and i didn't argue Taylor over Boult i argued Southee's average against Roach's which people were happy to overlook due to "recent form"...but anyway we can debate this if you wish but i'm not gonna argue all day about it...lets not take this thread into the gutter again please.