Teja.
Global Moderator
Haha, that is obviously a very intelligible differentia.Didn't i say a SINGLE series?
Haha, that is obviously a very intelligible differentia.Didn't i say a SINGLE series?
Hey, WW. Clyde Walcott. 1955. Lindwall, Miller, Benaud, and Johnston. 5 centuries. What say?Didn't i say a SINGLE series?
Yes...because he has a history of following YOU around the forum...right?This is abolsutely bull**** posting.
How was the decks like?Hey, WW. Clyde Walcott. 1955. Lindwall, Miller, Benaud, and Johnston. 5 centuries. What say?
You have officially got upset. I think ***** should apologize .Yes...because he has a history of following YOU around the forum...right?
I have no interest in having a debate with that poster but almost everyday my name appears in one of his posts...thankfully the mods are aware of the games being played.
Nah i prefer to just laugh at your posts tbh .My CW dream is to have a post of mine reported by WW resulting in an infraction.
Ah yes, I gather you are a very adept player of "hide the strudel".Yes...because he has a history of following YOU around the forum...right?
I have no interest in having a debate with that poster but almost everyday my name appears in one of his posts...thankfully the mods are aware of the games being played.
I don't know.How was the decks like?
Cant help it bro. You provide great entertainment value.Yes...because he has a history of following YOU around the forum...right?
I have no interest in having a debate with that poster but almost everyday my name appears in one of his posts...thankfully the mods are aware of the games being played.
Doesn't matter. The formula according to you is: more than 4 hundreds= flat pitch + crap bowlingHow was the decks like?
"Never seen Walcott, but I reckon he had a TECHNICAL FLAW that was extremely apparent and the Aussies weren't able to expose that...conditions or no conditions they were probably all over the place when bowling to him.Hey, WW. Clyde Walcott. 1955. Lindwall, Miller, Benaud, and Johnston. 5 centuries. What say?
Stop crying please...i did give him credit for the 5th day ton .Doesn't matter. The formula according to you is: more than 4 hundreds= flat pitch + crap bowling
We thus conclude what we doubted all along. Walcott was an FYI and lindwall, Miller, Benaud were rubbish.
I think you missed a few and smileys but otherwise, good post."Never seen Walcott, but I reckon he had a TECHNICAL FLAW that was extremely apparent and the Aussies weren't able to expose that...conditions or no conditions they were probably all over the place when bowling to him.
Also, he probably wasn't the only one scoring tons in that series...The aussie attack was very good but not "great" when you have a guy with such a flaw constantly getting the better of them..."
Nah, you said they bowled rubbish to him on day 5. Always knew Australian bowlers were rubbish. Just needed Kohli to bash them and WW to point out the facts to us. Was so obvious.Stop crying please...i did give him credit for the 5th day ton .
How magnanamous of you.Stop crying please...i did give him credit for the 5th day ton .
Stop focusing on ME and following ME around the forum...otherwise I will accuse YOU of crying.I think you missed a few B-) and smileys but otherwise, good post.
*threatens to report post*Stop focusing on ME and following ME around the forum...otherwise I will accuse YOU of crying.
Please don't. The moderators might tell you about the libidinous games I play with them.*threatens to report post*