*Congratulations* Brian Lara 10,000 Test Runs!

[tooextracool]

i think i have actually.....the fact maybe that neither of us managed to convince the other that they were right, but that was only because you stated things that happened wrongly, despite the fact that cricinfo and several other people stated to the contrary.

 

[Richard]

And of course CricInfo (and other sources of scorecards) always said Ealham never bowled at the death and hardly ever bowled in the first 15, didn't they?
And of course the fact that CricInfo reporters got it wrong along with you changes actual happenings, recorded on video-footage, doesn't it?

 

[tooextracool]

And of course CricInfo (and other sources of scorecards) always said Ealham never bowled at the death and hardly ever bowled in the first 15, didn't they

no but they did of course mention that the perth wicket was in fact flat and also that the motera wicket was also not a turner but a very slow flat wicket.

And of course the fact that CricInfo reporters got it wrong along with you changes actual happenings, recorded on video-footage, doesn't it?

and just because you come up with your made up stories off what happened when they didnt must change everything.....even when professional writers and other people who know more than you point to the contrary

 

[Richard]

no but they did of course mention that the perth wicket was in fact flat and also that the motera wicket was also not a turner but a very slow flat wicket.

And in both cases they were also wrong - just because you agree with them does not make them right!
If you were to need to you could go through CricInfo and find many more reports that said things happened in a way they didn't.
But of course CricInfo has to be right all the time, otherwise that would destroy your chances of winning this argument.

and just because you come up with your made up stories off what happened when they didnt must change everything.....even when professional writers and other people who know more than you point to the contrary

And if anyone points to the contrary, whoever they are, they're wrong - and I'd show them so if I could, by telling them to watch the video.

 

[tooextracool]

And in both cases they were also wrong - just because you agree with them does not make them right!.

its the other way around...they agree with me.

If you were to need to you could go through CricInfo and find many more reports that said things happened in a way they didn't.
But of course CricInfo has to be right all the time, otherwise that would destroy your chances of winning this argument.
And if anyone points to the contrary, whoever they are, they're wrong - and I'd show them so if I could, by telling them to watch the video.

they are not wrong because they've watched the match live just like me. 'the perth track was a turner' was just ridiculous especially from someone who claims to have watched that match.
no i find it impossible to understand how every commentator that watched all 5 days of that motera test match could be wrong about the pitch being slow and dead. i can however imagine someone like you making up things that didnt happen just to prove a point which he otherwise had no chance of doing so.

 

[Richard]

its the other way around...they agree with me.

Yes, despite the fact the relative articles were written 2 and 1-and-a-half years before you joined CW.n...

they are not wrong because they've watched the match live just like me. 'the perth track was a turner' was just ridiculous especially from someone who claims to have watched that match.

And because I did watch the match, and took in what I watched, I don't really give a damn what anyone else says.

no i find it impossible to understand how every commentator that watched all 5 days of that motera test match could be wrong about the pitch being slow and dead. i can however imagine someone like you making up things that didnt happen just to prove a point which he otherwise had no chance of doing so.

Find it impossible if you want.
I know what I saw and I don't really give a damn who contradicts me.
You, not me, I might remind you, first brought-up both of these matches.
So it was you that was trying to prove a point and used invalid material.

 

[PY]

"When Wall Meets Wall"

 

[Richard]

Dravid?
Where is he?
Point - point - point...





There are two Rahul Dravids..........

 

[tooextracool]

Yes, despite the fact the relative articles were written 2 and 1-and-a-half years before you joined CW.n.

no the point is i made my opinion and then brought in cricinfo's to back it up. so try as hard as you want to but its not as though my opinion was in any way based on the cricinfo article

And because I did watch the match, and took in what I watched, I don't really give a damn what anyone else says.

and because several other people also watched the match and because it doesnt take a cricketing genius to decide whether or not a wicket is a turner or not only means that if more people agree on one thing, it must be right.

Find it impossible if you want.
I know what I saw and I don't really give a damn who contradicts me.
You, not me, I might remind you, first brought-up both of these matches.
So it was you that was trying to prove a point and used invalid material.

i think i proved myself quite clearly, its quite easy for anyone to just deny everything against him and that doesnt mean that you have even come close to proving me wrong.

 

[Richard]

no the point is i made my opinion and then brought in cricinfo's to back it up. so try as hard as you want to but its not as though my opinion was in any way based on the cricinfo article

So?
You brought-up the incorrect idea that Trescothick's wicket to Zoysa was due to help for the bowlers, ie seam-movement.
The person who was incorrect in saying that there was some help (and he said the slope - not seam-movement) said so a long time before you.
So given that your relative piece came second means you agree with Lamb or whoever wrote it, not that he agrees with you.

and because several other people also watched the match and because it doesnt take a cricketing genius to decide whether or not a wicket is a turner or not only means that if more people agree on one thing, it must be right.

Wrong.
Many, many times supposed cricketing sages get stuff quite wrong or cannot recall at all when I can - even the best in the business.
The only reason it is inconceivable that I might be right and them (and you) wrong is because it is not convenient for you for this to be the case.

i think i proved myself quite clearly, its quite easy for anyone to just deny everything against him and that doesnt mean that you have even come close to proving me wrong.

Here we go on this again.
There is no such thing as "proof" of anything - all that matters is majority and minority opinion.
As there are a massive number of two in this debate, there is no right and wrong - just you think one thing, I think another.
You are not going to realise you are wrong, so there we go.

 

[tooextracool]

So?
You brought-up the incorrect idea that Trescothick's wicket to Zoysa was due to help for the bowlers, ie seam-movement.

and it cant be incorrect if you cant prove otherwise.

The person who was incorrect in saying that there was some help (and he said the slope - not seam-movement) said so a long time before you.
So given that your relative piece came second means you agree with Lamb or whoever wrote it, not that he agrees with you.

for me to agree with something i need to have acutally read it and then made my opinion, which is not what i did. i posted my opinion on here and then backed it up from cricinfo.

Wrong.
Many, many times supposed cricketing sages get stuff quite wrong or cannot recall at all when I can - even the best in the business.
The only reason it is inconceivable that I might be right and them (and you) wrong is because it is not convenient for you for this to be the case..

no there has never been a case when everyone in the commentary box can read a wicket after 5 days of play completely wrong. and the fact that i agree with them only makes it even less likely.
and if everyone gets it wrong then maybe you got this one wrong almighty one?

Here we go on this again.
There is no such thing as "proof" of anything - all that matters is majority and minority opinion.
As there are a massive number of two in this debate, there is no right and wrong - just you think one thing, I think another.
You are not going to realise you are wrong, so there we go

so does that mean that you cant prove anything to me either? i can just take all your arguments and deny that it ever happened then?

 

[Richard]

and it cant be incorrect if you cant prove otherwise.

Oh, yes it can - I just can't show it on this board.
I know it for myself, however, and that's good enough for me.

for me to agree with something i need to have acutally read it and then made my opinion, which is not what i did. i posted my opinion on here and then backed it up from cricinfo.

Both of you whom were wrong.
And did I ever actually say you based out opinion on that article? No. But it came first and hence you agree with it, not the other way around. Whatever was brought-up on here first.

no there has never been a case when everyone in the commentary box can read a wicket after 5 days of play completely wrong. and the fact that i agree with them only makes it even less likely.
and if everyone gets it wrong then maybe you got this one wrong almighty one?

No, not at all.
I can be right and a lot of people can be wrong, it happens often.

so does that mean that you cant prove anything to me either? i can just take all your arguments and deny that it ever happened then?

Yes, you can. You do, regularly. You are wrong, regularly. And that's apparent to anyone who's even bothering to follow.

 

[tooextracool]

Oh, yes it can - I just can't show it on this board.
I know it for myself, however, and that's good enough for me.

if you cant show it on this board then you cant prove it....fact is that i have the same problem, except that im not lying.

Both of you whom were wrong.
And did I ever actually say you based out opinion on that article? No. But it came first and hence you agree with it, not the other way around. Whatever was brought-up on here first.

and the chances of that happening are very slim indeed, whats far more likely is that you are wrong.

No, not at all.

and so maybe you are wrong on this occasion then?

I can be right and a lot of people can be wrong, it happens often.

except that when it comes to deciding whether a pitch is flat or not, anyone who watches cricket can decide for himself. if a bunch of experts in the commentary box say that a pitch was flat then by all means it must be flat. when it comes to saying whether a player is world class or test class, they could be wrong though.

Yes, you can. You do, regularly. You are wrong, regularly. And that's apparent to anyone who's even bothering to follow.

oh really? if it was apparent then popular opinion on these forums would be backing your argument....when in fact most of them have backed mine.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Popular Opinion on these forums got bored a long, long time ago.

 

[Richard]

if you cant show it on this board then you cant prove it....fact is that i have the same problem, except that im not lying.

No, you're not - you can't lie if you don't know the truth.
And there are times, quite a few of them, where you clearly don't know the truth.

and the chances of that happening are very slim indeed, whats far more likely is that you are wrong.

No, it's not. It is not a case of any chance, it is a case of certainty - you are wrong and I am right.
It is not in the least unusual for correspondants to credit bowlers for something they have not done.
That is exactly what happened in the case of Zoysa's ball to Trescothick.
You tried to use that to say there were seaming conditions Vaas should have exploited and didn't.

and so maybe you are wrong on this occasion then?

No, I'm not. The Motera wicket turned throughout the match.

except that when it comes to deciding whether a pitch is flat or not, anyone who watches cricket can decide for himself. if a bunch of experts in the commentary box say that a pitch was flat then by all means it must be flat. when it comes to saying whether a player is world class or test class, they could be wrong though.

And have you thought of this, genius?
It is very common for cricket followers, of repute and not, to label a pitch "flat" because lots of runs have been scored on it. It is far less common for people to do what Mark Butcher did earlier this season and say "in the last few years we've seen some terrible wickets here at Headingley that have had enormous amounts of runs scored on them".
People judge wickets on the scorecards far more often than they judge them on watching closely. Partly because, obviously, so few actually watch closely and just use things that jump out.

oh really? if it was apparent then popular opinion on these forums would be backing your argument....when in fact most of them have backed mine.

Well, let's see some examples of this, then?
I refer you to this:

Popular Opinion on these forums got bored a long, long time ago.

The fact is, I doubt many people are really taking much notice of our long-winded drawn-outs.

 

[lord_of_darkness]

didnt brian lara pass his 10 000 a good while back now :P ?

 

[Richard]

C'mon, Reuben - you must've heard the one about discussion-evolution a few times...

 

[lord_of_darkness]

oh yeh ive heard of that .. but here your running behind him around the merry-go-round and hes running behind you ...

 

[Richard]

I ain't givin up - if tooextracool doesn't, that's the inevitable result.

 

[tooextracool]

if you're waiting for me to give up.....then you better lie down.