ohnoitsyou
International Regular
What do Martin Guptill and Ish Sodhi have in common?
_____________________________________(fill in the blanks)
_____________________________________(fill in the blanks)
Hilarious though - you've just made my point.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.
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 upWell, that's probably due to the fact that there are three or four regular NZ posters at the moment sitting out with a ban.
Neither of them will have an international cricket acareer past 2016.What do Martin Guptill and Ish Sodhi have in common?
_____________________________________(fill in the blanks)
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?"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.
Neither of them will have an international cricket acareer past 2016.
Yeah, ok. 8)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
Hope you do. Guptill will be surpassed even in T20 by then.Right. I'll remember that. My word.
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.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.
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.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.
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.Yeah, ok. 8)
I'm playing the game you guys started. Report everything and anything that is remotely offensive.
Actually, you've turned the threads to ****. Because ultimately you recriminate things out of context from days, weeks, months earlier.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.
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.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.
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.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.
See, revising history just doesn't really work.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.
Yeah 60 more overs unless baz or Anderson slaps a gets us to 300 before thatSo ...
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.