nightprowler10
Global Moderator
3 matches 6 runs.
Cummins bowled five, count them, five bouncers to Saini. Three of them came relatively close to getting him out caught in the slips cordon. Based on this you claimed that Cummins sole intent -- not part of the plan, but his only intent -- was to injure the batsman.He says, imputing malice to try and gin up a controversy.
Are you in his brain? Do you know?Cummins bowled five, count them, five bouncers to Saini. Three of them came relatively close to getting him out caught in the slips cordon. Based on this you claimed that Cummins sole intent -- not part of the plan, but his only intent -- was to injure the batsman.
This makes 0 sense, bluntly.
That would be the case if Cummins didn’t cop it himself. But he does.The bigger coward is at the bowling end
Haha, more condescension. The professor hath spoken. Everyone else must be wrong.Cummins bowled five, count them, five bouncers to Saini. Three of them came relatively close to getting him out caught in the slips cordon. Based on this you claimed that Cummins sole intent -- not part of the plan, but his only intent -- was to injure the batsman.
This makes 0 sense, bluntly. They bowled bouncers in the hope that he would dolly one up in the air or nick off. It's an entirely legitimate wicket-taking strategy and here you were, saying that the intention "wasn't to get him out caught" when virtually every single fielder was in a catching position. Come off it.