**Official** Pakistan v New Zealand in the UAE 2014

[ohnoitsyou]

What do Martin Guptill and Ish Sodhi have in common?

_____________________________________(fill in the blanks)

 

[Blocky]

Ie, you think Boult should be dropped



If someone is to be dropped it will be Boult over Craig. Sodhi having outbowled craig in the previous match



So you want Wagner in the team infront on Boult, with Craig and Sodhi being ahead of Craig.



You sir, are an idiot.

Hilarious though - you've just made my point.

A: I never said Boult should be dropped, you're trying to imply I did
B: I've pointed out Boult needs to learn, but ultimately remains toothless without the new ball.
C: I've reiterated those points by saying Wagner would be a better horse for this course, however they shouldn't play exclusive of one another
D: The only mention of me saying Wagner should be ahead of Boult was me agreeing with someone that "Wagner should be ahead of Boult" which you nicely took out of context.

Internet Arguing 101, you're doing it wrong.

 

[ohnoitsyou]

Well, that's probably due to the fact that there are three or four regular NZ posters at the moment sitting out with a ban.

Maybe if you didn't run and moan to the mods every time someone treated you like you treat your mates you would be joining them. Man up

 

[Blocky]

What do Martin Guptill and Ish Sodhi have in common?

_____________________________________(fill in the blanks)

Neither of them will have an international cricket acareer past 2016.

 

[Days of Grace]

"Bowled some unplayable deliveries" - He's got Azhar out a few times, outside of that? What was unplayable? All I saw was a #11 dispatching him to the boundary and the tail end having no problem at all batting against him.

You're right. No spinner in the history of test cricket has managed to be hit around for a couple of boundaries by a no.11. Useless ****, isn't he?

 

[Days of Grace]

Neither of them will have an international cricket acareer past 2016.

Right. I'll remember that. My word.

 

[Blocky]

Maybe if you didn't run and moan to the mods every time someone treated you like you treat your mates you would be joining them. Man up

Yeah, ok. 8)

I'm playing the game you guys started. Report everything and anything that is remotely offensive.

 

[Blocky]

Right. I'll remember that. My word.

Hope you do. Guptill will be surpassed even in T20 by then.
Sodhi won't factor past this year - have a look at Nethula, Loveridge, Walker et all.

 

[ohnoitsyou]

Hilarious though - you've just made my point.

A: I never said Boult should be dropped, you're trying to imply I did
B: I've pointed out Boult needs to learn, but ultimately remains toothless without the new ball.
C: I've reiterated those points by saying Wagner would be a better horse for this course, however they shouldn't play exclusive of one another
D: The only mention of me saying Wagner should be ahead of Boult was me agreeing with someone that "Wagner should be ahead of Boult" which you nicely took out of context.

Internet Arguing 101, you're doing it wrong.

So who would you drop for Wagner? It can't be craig because you would rather drop Boult, and it can't be Sodhi because Sodhi was proving a much better horse for the course than Craig. I thought selecting the best side was your policy. Because otherwise, you want Boult to stay while Wagner sits on the sidelines, which we all agree isnt the strongest team. Blocky meet logic, logic, blocky.

 

[Blocky]

So personal with you guys isn't it.

"We don't think Sodhi is any good, but we'll argue with Blocky and make out like Sodhi is good, even though in vMessages we talk about how Sodhi is bad, but we only argue because we think we're winding Blocky up... "

I'll argue all day about Sodhi being crap. I enjoy pointing out crap cricketers almost as much as I enjoy making predictions like Wagner coming into the side and destroying teams like I said he would last season, or Neesham out performing Anderson with the bat like he has, or Watling being capable of both keeping and batting better than Van Wyk who most of you were loving at the time.

 

[Blocky]

So who would you drop for Wagner? It can't be craig because you would rather drop Boult, and it can't be Sodhi because Sodhi was proving a much better horse for the course than Craig. I thought selecting the best side was your policy. Because otherwise, you want Boult to stay while Wagner sits on the sidelines, which we all agree isnt the strongest team. Blocky meet logic, logic, blocky.

The best side can't be selected, because the best side isn't in UAE at the moment. So ultimately you've got a choice of Wagner, Sodhi, Boult, Southee and Craig for the bowling positions. Craig is bowling terribly - the only logical decision to make is pretty obvious. Since the statement you took, Craig has bowled another crap innings - making him being dropped even more logical. Otherwise like I mentioned earlier, it's either Anderson or Neesham.

Nice strawman though. Can't possibly state "Boult isn't worth **** in these conditions" without an uproar.

 

[ohnoitsyou]

Yeah, ok. 8)

I'm playing the game you guys started. Report everything and anything that is remotely offensive.

I haven't reported a single one of your posts, even though your posting could fit about 4-5 categories. You've turned about 5 threads to **** now, and what are we supposed to do, sit back and let you get away with **** posting.

 

[Blocky]

I haven't reported a single one of your posts, even though your posting could fit about 4-5 categories. You've turned about 5 threads to **** now, and what are we supposed to do, sit back and let you get away with **** posting.

Actually, you've turned the threads to ****. Because ultimately you recriminate things out of context from days, weeks, months earlier.

Your own vMessages betray the whole intent of "let's argue with Blocky, because we think it's fun"

ohnoitsyou - 15-06-2014 11:01 PM - permalink Report
Actually rate Wagner a lot, but **** its fun winding Blocky up for some more Howsie bait.

But you're claiming I turn the threads to ****, while you openly state that you indulge in the arguments and try to wind me up? That's logical.

 

[ohnoitsyou]

So personal with you guys isn't it.

"We don't think Sodhi is any good, but we'll argue with Blocky and make out like Sodhi is good, even though in vMessages we talk about how Sodhi is bad, but we only argue because we think we're winding Blocky up... "

I'll argue all day about Sodhi being crap. I enjoy pointing out crap cricketers almost as much as I enjoy making predictions like Wagner coming into the side and destroying teams like I said he would last season, or Neesham out performing Anderson with the bat like he has, or Watling being capable of both keeping and batting better than Van Wyk who most of you were loving at the time.

No one really liked Van Wyk. Only Flem, and thats only because of CD. There was big support for De Border and Ronchi. Neesham and Anderson are still at the start of their careers, so lets have this discussion in 5 years time. your posting on neesh was quality, it turned to **** as soon as you started bringing your messiah complex into play.

We all agree that Sodhi is somewhere between crap and mediocre. We just don't want to have pages full of Sodhi is ****, Wagner is God.

 

[Athlai]

Yeah God damn it ohno stop ruining all the threads.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Hey guys let's compare our cricket dicks because cricket is serious business.

 

[ohnoitsyou]

Actually, you've turned the threads to ****. Because ultimately you recriminate things out of context from days, weeks, months earlier.

Your own vMessages betray the whole intent of "let's argue with Blocky, because we think it's fun"

ohnoitsyou - 15-06-2014 11:01 PM - permalink Report
Actually rate Wagner a lot, but **** its fun winding Blocky up for some more Howsie bait.

But you're claiming I turn the threads to ****, while you openly state that you indulge in the arguments and try to wind me up? That's logical.

Yeah, guilty as charged. That was in the test where he was bowling beautifully so i wasn't being serious at all. That game got old very very fast.

 

[vandem]

So ...

How long does NZ have to bat to save the test? There were around 140 overs to play from the start of their innings, I assume they need to bat 80 overs (= 240 runs @ 3 rpo), leaves Pak 250 to win from 60 overs which isn't beyond the strong Pak middle order. Anything less means Pak will stroll home.

 

[Blocky]

No one really liked Van Wyk. Only Flem, and thats only because of CD. There was big support for De Border and Ronchi. Neesham and Anderson are still at the start of their careers, so lets have this discussion in 5 years time. your posting on neesh was quality, it turned to **** as soon as you started bringing your messiah complex into play.

We all agree that Sodhi is somewhere between crap and mediocre. We just don't want to have pages full of Sodhi is ****, Wagner is God.

See, revising history just doesn't really work.

Almost everyone and their dog was hankering for Kruger Van Wyk on the back of his domestic form and they all felt he would do much better than Watling, there was even consensus that after Watling had injury (having scored a tonne as keeper) that Van Wyk should be kept there.

The problem you seem to have is the "Woe is me" complex where you make posts about how I've apparently made endless points on Sodhi, when realistically what occured was me saying "Well, Sodhi bowled reasonably" and "Sodhi bowled his best for NZ" which turned into people attempting to create arguments/justification for Sodhi, at which point I pointed out that "reasonable" still meant 46 runs per wicket and was horrible when you consider the conditions he's bowling in, he just happens to be "not as horrible" as Craig.

The other thing that does make me laugh is while you backtrack on your views, you don't seem to think I should be able to adjust mine - i.e "Give Craig a shot." has turned into "Craig is terrible" from me. But according to you, the view first stated should be the one adhered to, in which case, tell us again how Wagner is crap?

 

[Athlai]

So ...

How long does NZ have to bat to save the test? There were around 140 overs to play from the start of their innings, I assume they need to bat 80 overs (= 240 runs @ 3 rpo), leaves Pak 250 to win from 60 overs which isn't beyond the strong Pak middle order. Anything less means Pak will stroll home.

Yeah 60 more overs unless baz or Anderson slaps a gets us to 300 before that