-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Biggest cricket moment when you've been at the ground
- Thread starter Marius
- Start date
Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
Only because you won't listen.
Its not like anyone is telling you to drop your theories. Rather, maybe not force them down everyone's throat? Especially in a thread where one is entitled to remember the fun they had whilst watching a game.
I think Marius has a right to be frustrated.
Its not like anyone is telling you to drop your theories. Rather, maybe not force them down everyone's throat? Especially in a thread where one is entitled to remember the fun they had whilst watching a game.
I think Marius has a right to be frustrated.
Yes. But if he made a significant amount of runs after the drop then that indicates ability. Regardless of whether it would have happened normally or not, IT DID HAPPEN. So it has to included for a COMPLETE evaluation of the batsman's ability. It shouldnt be given as much weightage as runs scored without any chances, but it should be included in the evaluation.Richard said:
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
What's the point in having the things at all if you don't try to persuade others of their merits?Jono said:
You're a fine one to talk about ramming stuff down people's throats, given that aside from Marc you've been the one who's made most fuss about slamming the darn thing.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
You see, I just can't find any way of quantifying things like that - I don't like the idea of having 2\3 runs, or 1\3 runs, or whatever - it just gets too complicated and you've got a job justifying this, that and the other. As you pointed-out with the all-chance average discussion.shankar said:
I just prefer the easiest way.
Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
First off, there's a difference between persuasion and ramming your theory into people's heads. Especially when the thread isnt about any form of analysis, but that word you seem to forget sometimes. F-U-N.Richard said:
Look at your post in this thread in relation to my first post.
Why the hell would I not slam it? I referred to some fun I had at a cricket ground watching a knock, and you bring up your little theory, ruining any joy of reminiscence I had about that day. The atmosphere was great, the Indians were winning which rarely happens anyway, let alone whenever I'm there at the ground. There was absolutely no need for you to bring your theory into the equation.
This thread was created for a feeling of nostalgia. Why ruin it for people? And don't claim you haven't, because it extremely palpable that you have. I assume your reply will be you have the right to reply to whatever you want in whatever way you want as long as its within the rules. I won't be surprised if you do.
Last edited:
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Once again, I bring the thing up - evolution of discussion.Jono said:First off, there's a difference between persuasion and ramming your theory into people's heads. Especially when the thread isnt about any form of analysis, but that word you seem to forget sometimes. F-U-N.
What can start seriously can reverse (happens countless times) and vice-versa.
1) Ain't like this is the only time.
2) How the hell does it ruin the fun and joy? You've said so many times that you don't care - all I was saying was that I would not enjoy such a poor innings.
Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
You clearly believe you were right in doing it, so I'm not going to argue this anymore.
Just a question, have you ever thought considering the growing amount of people that have clearly been upset by some of your posts where you decide to bring in your theory when not really necessary, you may want to possibly pick and choose when to flaunt it?
If not, well then carry on I guess. Just expect more complaints, which seem to be water off the duck's back to you.
Just a question, have you ever thought considering the growing amount of people that have clearly been upset by some of your posts where you decide to bring in your theory when not really necessary, you may want to possibly pick and choose when to flaunt it?
If not, well then carry on I guess. Just expect more complaints, which seem to be water off the duck's back to you.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Growing?Jono said:
No, just people who haven't seen it before.
People have always complained about it - but people like you and Marc are rare, those who keep on bashing their heads out trying to pick faults (most of which I've acknowledged, but Marc's "it doesn't exist" really does get tiresome) are rare. Plenty of people actually see what I'm on with it, and some just don't bother commenting after a while (Neil, for instance).
But of course new people will almost always take issue, because the chances are it's alien.
Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
Wow. You've clearly missed the point of my last post. That must have seriously gone over your head.
I wasn't referring to people disagreeing with your theory at all, but rather when you decide to bring it up. Sometimes its not appropriate.
Case in point:
Timmy goes to see a test match with his grandad who happens to be 85 years old. There's a tremendous atmosphere, his team are well on top which rarely occurs for him and he's witnessing one of his favourite players score a hundred. He was dropped on 44, which made Timmy glad, because he really wanted to see that player score a ton. To see it with his grandad, who now happens to be in hospital (
) makes it that much sweeter.
A couple of years later, on a message board Timmy reminisces about that knock in a thread specifically for that. Out comes Richard to state he didn't deserve the ton, as he was dropped before he got it. Appropriate?
Melodramatic example, but it wouldn't surprise me if you'd still do it.
I wasn't referring to people disagreeing with your theory at all, but rather when you decide to bring it up. Sometimes its not appropriate.
Case in point:
Timmy goes to see a test match with his grandad who happens to be 85 years old. There's a tremendous atmosphere, his team are well on top which rarely occurs for him and he's witnessing one of his favourite players score a hundred. He was dropped on 44, which made Timmy glad, because he really wanted to see that player score a ton. To see it with his grandad, who now happens to be in hospital (
) makes it that much sweeter.A couple of years later, on a message board Timmy reminisces about that knock in a thread specifically for that. Out comes Richard to state he didn't deserve the ton, as he was dropped before he got it. Appropriate?
Melodramatic example, but it wouldn't surprise me if you'd still do it.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Appropriate to point-out that he didn't deserve the ton because he was dropped on 44 (I thought it was 47...?)
If Timmy really did treasure that memory (and fair does if he would) I hardly see that Richard mentioning that he didn't deserve the ton takes away anything from it. There are more important things than the runs scored and the team on top in this case. The results of it are what matters - the feelgood factor.
And that's what we treasure above all.
If Timmy really did treasure that memory (and fair does if he would) I hardly see that Richard mentioning that he didn't deserve the ton takes away anything from it. There are more important things than the runs scored and the team on top in this case. The results of it are what matters - the feelgood factor.
And that's what we treasure above all.
