RossTaylorsBox
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Sodhi definitely had two dropped chances within a few overs of each other. Shame it was like the 150th over whatever.
It's a valid point, just as it's valid for WW to come in and say Brathwaite looks more talented than Latham, but it's a WWism because it was brought up specifically because Blocky advocated Wagners selection. That 'ouch' after the statement furhter em ah **** this I can't defend blocky anymore he's a ****.And a change would naturally mean the merits of the replacements own benefits in that field should be examined right? Wags the ball killer ain't helping no one.
Gosh that's an awfully bold gesture of friendship you have made there.It's a valid point, just as it's valid for WW to come in and say Brathwaite looks more talented than Latham, but it's a WWism because it was brought up specifically because Blocky advocated Wagners selection. That 'ouch' after the statement furhter em ah **** this I can't defend blocky anymore he's a ****.
Fair point, I'll concede it.It's a valid point, just as it's valid for WW to come in and say Brathwaite looks more talented than Latham, but it's a WWism because it was brought up specifically because Blocky advocated Wagners selection. That 'ouch' after the statement furhter em ah **** this I can't defend blocky anymore he's a ****.
I only remember one, from Hafeez when he was on forty odd in the second inningsSodhi definitely had two dropped chances within a few overs of each other. Shame it was like the 150th over whatever.
He has more FC wickets than Cummings and has played for more professional teams than Paul Wiseman or smth like that. Goes by a username that rhymes with ****y.I am not sure who you are referring to. Please rephrase.
Also, I appreciate your continued gestures of friendship.
The point is that Blocky is saying Sodhi is **** because he scuffs up the ball, yet he doesn't have a problem with Wagner doing exactly the same.The conversation was whether or not Sodhi is affecting the chances of the others getting reverse swing, not about whether Sodhi or Wagner was worse at scuffing up the ball.
Craig and Neesham dropped sitters in the first dig.I only remember one, from Hafeez when he was on forty odd in the second innings
No this never happened.Craig and Neesham dropped sitters in the first dig.
By the way Blocky, don't take offence to this. I'm just trying to cash in on this whole 'CW vs WW & Blocky' situation by getting some free likes. In a way the more likes I get reinforces your theory about the dangerous group herd mentality prevalent on this forum; I'm actually helping your cause.It's a valid point, just as it's valid for WW to come in and say Brathwaite looks more talented than Latham, but it's a WWism because it was brought up specifically because Blocky advocated Wagners selection. That 'ouch' after the statement furhter em ah **** this I can't defend blocky anymore he's a ****.
That doesn't change the fact that Sodhi scuffs up the ball, which is what the discussion was about?The point is that Blocky is saying Sodhi is **** because he scuffs up the ball, yet he doesn't have a problem with Wagner doing exactly the same.
I think you'd struggle to find a single instance where I've taken offense to anything being said. I'm not the sensitive one here.By the way Blocky, don't take offence to this. I'm just trying to cash in on this whole 'CW vs WW & Blocky' situation by getting some free likes. In a way the more likes I get reinforces your theory about the dangerous group herd mentality prevalent on this forum; I'm actually helping your cause.
You're welcome.
I think you'd struggle to find a single instance where I've taken offense to anything being said. I'm not the sensitive one here.
- blockylist of things nz performed better than in this test:
- this thread
Apparently Wagner, who has averaged about 22 in the last 12 months with the ball, is a **** option for NZ to consider instead of someone averaging 50 with the ball (and a high percentage of those wickets being tailenders)... also, we shouldn't expect spin bowlers to ever perform for NZ, even in conditions that suit spin bowlers. We should just be happy that they're there and scuffing the ball up to ensure we don't get the ball reversing later in the innings.That doesn't change the fact that Sodhi scuffs up the ball, which is what the discussion was about?
I need the Zippax chances video, I even think the consensus at the time was that Craig had bowled well without luck and Sodhi had continued to be a pie thrower.Craig and Neesham dropped sitters in the first dig.
Nobody's saying that; all they're saying is that Wagner scuffs up the ball just as much as (if not more than) Sodhi, so advocating his selection on those grounds is utterly brainless. It's completely specious reasoning to use that as a positive for Wagner's inclusion. And it's not like there's a short list of reasons why Wagner should be picked ahead of Sodhi.Apparently Wagner, who has averaged about 22 in the last 12 months with the ball, is a **** option for NZ to consider instead of someone averaging 50 with the ball (and a high percentage of those wickets being tailenders)... also, we shouldn't expect spin bowlers to ever perform for NZ, even in conditions that suit spin bowlers. We should just be happy that they're there and scuffing the ball up to ensure we don't get the ball reversing later in the innings.
i was playing the player.That doesn't change the fact that Sodhi scuffs up the ball, which is what the discussion was about?