Adam Gilchrist

[Thelwell]

You tell him krkode!

Example abit extreme but i like. Gets your point across perfectly.

 

[Richard]

For that matter, India and Pakistan separating is a basic historical fact. If it didn't separate all their cricket talent would be combined. Do you dispute that?

Y'know, the bottom line is, nobody cares who was dropped when. Except you, of course. Don't even try to tell us (me) that somebody's innings isn't great because he was dropped a couple of times. That's part of a great innings - going past your mistakes and finishing the job.

If a soldier who later wins the Medal of Honor was missed by an enemy soldier on his first day at battle, is our Medal of Honor-winning soldier any less of a great soldier?

Oh no...he would have died on day 1. He didn't deserve to do all those great things.

Extreme example, but it sounds like what you're saying.

Total nonsense.
Did I ever say Wasim wouldn't have played for India had Pakistan and Bangladesh not been separated? Did I dispute what you asked if I dispute? No, I didn't.
I will tell you that an overrated innings wasn't great until you're blue in the face - and believe me, you'll give-up first. No-one has ever beaten me in this persistance-race and no-one ever will.
And regarding the medal-of-honour thing, does the fact that he defied death detract from good things? No. Does a dropped catch mean an innings is worth less? Yes. Because there is no right and wrong - and that is what the Medal Of Honour concerns - doing good for humanity.
They are totally unrelated issues and to attempt to hallucinate a connection is a further straw-clutch.

 

[Richard]

You tell him krkode!

Example abit extreme but i like. Gets your point across perfectly.

Well, if it gets the point across to you that again demonstrates that you're willing to use anything, no matter how worthless, if you and it's promotor think it improves your argument.

 

[Neil Pickup]

I will tell you that an overrated innings wasn't great until you're blue in the face - and believe me, you'll give-up first. No-one has ever beaten me in this persistance-race and no-one ever will.

That's because people get bored of humouring it. It took me approximately a day and a half. Just because you get bored less easily doesn't mean you're right. Take that to its extreme and you have religious zealots who have never been swayed from their faith because no one can be bothered to waste their time on them.

And regarding the medal-of-honour thing, does the fact that he defied death detract from good things? No. Does a dropped catch mean an innings is worth less? Yes. Because there is no right and wrong - and that is what the Medal Of Honour concerns - doing good for humanity.
They are totally unrelated issues and to attempt to hallucinate a connection is a further straw-clutch.

It wasn't death-defying by his own ability... it was the other guy having him at gun point before suffering a coronary...

 

[marc71178]

It wasn't death-defying by his own ability... it was the other guy having him at gun point before suffering a coronary...

He clearly doesn't deserve credit for not dying owing to someone else's mistake!!!

 

[SquidAU]

back to the topic ppls.......

Gilchrist is getting a deserved rest and they are bringing in Brad Haddin......good move I think....they have tried with Maher and Campbell and they have not done particularly well......

 

[krkode]

And regarding the medal-of-honour thing, does the fact that he defied death detract from good things? No.

He didn't defy death. Like Neil said, it was an enemy who suffered a coronary before he could shoot our hero. Let's put it this way: he got a "life" from an inept enemy soldier.

I will tell you that an overrated innings wasn't great until you're blue in the face - and believe me, you'll give-up first. No-one has ever beaten me in this persistance-race and no-one ever will.

As loud as the horn is, I won't go deaf. Trust me.

I can tell you that your nitpicking is nonsense till you're yellow in the face, blue in the hands, green in the eyes, white in the hair and pinkish in the blood - and believe me, you'll give up first.

 

[Craig]

Show's how much attention you pay.

he also made an 80 odd against India as well.

I can remember just about all the games, but just dont remember a 100. But I did check and youre right. It was against India at Bangalore, more so I remember for Ponting's ton.

And Mister W I know Martyn made a 100. I remember that match well.

 

[Gaijin-san]

In fact, Gilchrist deserves two because it was against the wishes of the tosser captaining the team...

Ponting has said that he will not criticize a player for having the courage of his convictions. He simply pointed out that he himself believes that the umpire is there to do a job and you let him do just that. It was not against his wishes and calling him a tosser for that reason is foolhardy.

 

[Thelwell]

I see gilchrist was the only responsible batsman today, shouldnt of got out but withthe batting to come they should of won a bit easier.

Think michael clarke showed a bit of inmaturity withthe harvey run out.

Never heard of the guy who is replacing gilchrist who is he? What are his stats?

I got he impression this wade guy was next in line for a try after maher?

 

[Gaijin-san]

Originally posted by Thelwell
Think michael clarke showed a bit of inmaturity withthe harvey run out.

STFU fool. What would you do with runs needed and jack all time to do it? At the end of the day Harvey's own legs ran him out. His mouth didn't call 'no', either.

 

[mavric41]

I
I got he impression this wade guy was next in line for a try after maher?

Wade Secombe would be next inline for test matches but his batting is not as explosive as Haddin's who is more suited to the one day game.

 

[marc71178]

STFU fool.

Uncalled for.

Clarke is not the greatest player ever to tread the Earth, and he does make mistakes.

Attacking people for pointing these out is not needed.

 

[Linda]

they have tried with Maher and Campbell and they have not done particularly well......

Campell has only had 2 ODI matches, give him a break.

I don't really know what the motive is for Haddin. Youth is about the extent of it for mine... He seems to be an alright bat, but the 'keeping itself is hardly outstanding.

 

[Richard]

That's because people get bored of humouring it. It took me approximately a day and a half. Just because you get bored less easily doesn't mean you're right. Take that to its extreme and you have religious zealots who have never been swayed from their faith because no one can be bothered to waste their time on them.

Did I ever say the fact that no-one can beat me in the argument means I'm right? No, I just said that no-one will ever stop me saying that a let-off is the same as a dismissal as far as the batsman's ability is concerned.

It wasn't death-defying by his own ability... it was the other guy having him at gun point before suffering a coronary...

He clearly doesn't deserve credit for not dying owing to someone else's mistake!!!

He didn't defy death. Like Neil said, it was an enemy who suffered a coronary before he could shoot our hero. Let's put it this way: he got a "life" from an inept enemy soldier.

So, what you lot are saying is, he got The Medal Of Honour because someone didn't shoot him when by all accounts they should have done.
Forgive me, I thought he might have got it for something that he had some control over.
Of course he didn't deserve credit for not dying due to someone else's mistake. I had the strange idea that he might have done something after that which was considered worthy of MOH consideration.
If he did, then yes, of course he wouldn't have done it but for his "let-off". But that let-off doesn't detract from good deeds - indeed, it should be argued that it was justice.
However, in batsmanship a batsman doesn't deserve a let-off when he has done something that would have resulted in his dismissal normally.

As loud as the horn is, I won't go deaf. Trust me.

I can tell you that your nitpicking is nonsense till you're yellow in the face, blue in the hands, green in the eyes, white in the hair and pinkish in the blood - and believe me, you'll give up first.

No, I won't.
Because I don't give a damn whether I'm nit-picking or making a point about the saving of The World. I'm still making a valid point, I'm not talking nonsense. This is illustrated by the fact that you still haven't answered the question.

 

[krkode]

1) Did I ever say the fact that no-one can beat me in the argument means I'm right? No, I just said that no-one will ever stop me saying that a let-off is different to a dismissal as far as the batsman's ability is concerned.



2) So, what you lot are saying is, he got The Medal Of Honour because someone didn't shoot him when by all accounts they should have done.
Forgive me, I thought he might have got it for something that he had some control over.
Of course he didn't deserve credit for not dying due to someone else's mistake. I had the strange idea that he might have done something after that which was considered worthy of MOH consideration.
If he did, then yes, of course he wouldn't have done it but for his "let-off". But that let-off doesn't detract from good deeds - indeed, it should be argued that it was justice.
However, in batsmanship a batsman doesn't deserve a let-off when he has done something that would have resulted in his dismissal normally.

3) No, I won't.
Because I don't give a damn whether I'm nit-picking or making a point about the saving of The World. I'm still making a valid point, I'm not talking nonsense. This is illustrated by the fact that you still haven't answered the question.

2) It's the exact same scenario. A soldier, from an enemy's standpoint doesn't deserve a let-off. Moving on from a let-off, soldier or batsman does something great, be it fight for his country or make a century. The deed deserves its merit, not the deeds due to which it was made possible.

I don't know what your definition of justice is and how one can be justice and one not, then. Sure that in one scenario we're talking about life and death and in another, we're talking out or not, but it's the same thing - let-off goes on to become something commendable. :rolleyes:

1) Fine. And no one will ever stop me from saying that your opinion is nonsense.

3) You are talking as much nonsense as I am. Take from that what you will.:rolleyes:

 

[Richard]

2) the fact that he has escaped death does not detract from heroic deeds.
The fact that dismissal has been escaped through no credit to the batsman, when a batsman's task is averting dismissal (and scoring runs as a result), does detract from runs scored from that point on.
Because "should have died" is not as close to objective as is "should have been out".
Anyway, escaping death is pretty much the hope of everyone.

 

[marc71178]

No, I just said that no-one will ever stop me saying that a let-off is different to a dismissal as far as the batsman's ability is concerned.

I lay odds we will stop you saying that.

 

[Richard]

Well, you could impose penalties on me if I continued to say it.
Otherwise, you haven't got a prayer.

 

[marc71178]

Well, you could impose penalties on me if I continued to say it.
Otherwise, you haven't got a prayer.

Unless you're going to completely change your stance, I can guarantee you will never ever say that again! :P