Group A - Australia, South Africa, Scotland, Holland

[Ikki]

What point are you trying to make? He offered his opinions as to where he felt SA went wrong. If you're gonna crap on posts like that, then you have to question why you're at an internet forum. Might as well just look at the stats, rather than trying to analayse what went wrong and why.

I'm on an internet forum to discuss the issues that are actually worth the read or are debatable.

I thought the point was kinda obvious. No need to exert a 'crap' on a post.

 

[GIMH]

Yes but it's subjective what's worth reading, no? PF is perfectly entitled to assess why he felt South Africa lost....if you thought it wasn't worthwhile, then just move on, you don't have to arrogantly dismiss what he said.

As for "worth the read" - what is worth the read? An essayish oneupsmaniship contest between you and C-C? Or a harmless post-match post stating reasons as to South Africa's having to chase a high target.

 

[pasag]

Yes but it's subjective what's worth reading, no? PF is perfectly entitled to assess why he felt South Africa lost....if you thought it wasn't worthwhile, then just move on, you don't have to arrogantly dismiss what he said.

As for "worth the read" - what is worth the read? An essayish oneupsmaniship contest between you and C-C? Or a harmless post-match post stating reasons as to South Africa's having to chase a high target.

Agreed.

 

[Ikki]

Yes but it's subjective what's worth reading, no? PF is perfectly entitled to assess why he felt South Africa lost....if you thought it wasn't worthwhile, then just move on, you don't have to arrogantly dismiss what he said.

As for "worth the read" - what is worth the read? An essayish oneupsmaniship contest between you and C-C? Or a harmless post-match post stating reasons as to South Africa's having to chase a high target.

I'm entitled to my opinion too. Which is funny because of the ironic nature of your post. If I was arrogant, then it is seemingly matched by yours. My critique was quite transparent. To say bowlers - or their poor bowling - were the cause of a high score is not only as obvious as the sun. It seems to be a denigrating point against the Australian dominance. S.A. got hammered because S.A. got hammered. There. What is worth the read is something we may have not known before or something that has a true analytic quality to it. Of course that is a standard that not everyone can reproduce consistently, and there are posts just for fun.

Anyway, I wasn't insulting PF as I was poking fun. Which of course, is between him and I... I shall post as I see fit. You can critique my post, but you have no invitation to teach me how to post. Thanks.

 

[pup11]

I think its an open forum and anybody can express their views and opinions untill and unless they are being abusive or rude towards their co-posters. If everyone does that then there shouldn't be a problem, and i don't see anything wrong with KaZoHOlic's post either.


P.S: So guys so lets just get over.

 

[Laurrz]

wrong thread

 

[GIMH]

I'm entitled to my opinion too. Which is funny because of the ironic nature of your post. If I was arrogant, then it is seemingly matched by yours. My critique was quite transparent. To say bowlers - or their poor bowling - were the cause of a high score is not only as obvious as the sun. It seems to be a denigrating point against the Australian dominance. S.A. got hammered because S.A. got hammered. There. What is worth the read is something we may have not known before or something that has a true analytic quality to it. Of course that is a standard that not everyone can reproduce consistently, and there are posts just for fun.

Anyway, I wasn't insulting PF as I was poking fun. Which of course, is between him and I... I shall post as I see fit. You can critique my post, but you have no invitation to teach me how to post. Thanks.

I'm not trying to teach you how to post. Nothing is between two people on this forum, e-mail is for private conversations. I saw it fit to stand up for PF. No point taking this any further, mind you, so I'll leave it at that and move on.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Thanks GIMH

I was basically a bit pissed because he made some post that basically wasn't needed, and was posted in a smug manner, so I actively took objection to it.

 

[Ikki]

As I said before, I was poking fun. It was between he and me. And spare me the 'it's a forum' non-sense. It's not like I'm going to email him to give that one-liner.

If you want to be his mother/father, you can do so. It just isn't going to help any as I don't really give any credence to your exaggerated take on the matter.

I think Pup got it correctly.

 

[PhoenixFire]

If you want to be his mother/father,

Errr, he just stuck up for me, nothing wrong with that.........

 

[Clown Roy]

Stop bickering, kids.

Nothing is worse for reducing forum harmony & the overall atmosphere/ ambiance of the place.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Stop bickering, kids.

Nothing is worse for reducing forum harmony & the overall atmosphere/ ambiance of the place.

Seriously, you're not actually fooling anyone, and if I could be bothered, I could link to any other of your a few hundred posts on Cweb, that have been doing exactly the opposite to what you have just suggested.

 

[Clown Roy]

Seriously, you're not actually fooling anyone, and if I could be bothered, I could link to any other of your a few hundred posts on Cweb, that have been doing exactly the opposite to what you have just suggested.

No need, I'm sure young Dicky will be more than happy to oblige.

 

[PhoenixFire]

I'm sure he will

 

[kevin12]

Brian Lara

Only guy standing in the way of Australia i think is this guy

http://www.shareshack.org/files/cricket_nemesis.jpg

 

[Prince EWS]

I'm entitled to my opinion too. Which is funny because of the ironic nature of your post. If I was arrogant, then it is seemingly matched by yours. My critique was quite transparent. To say bowlers - or their poor bowling - were the cause of a high score is not only as obvious as the sun. It seems to be a denigrating point against the Australian dominance. S.A. got hammered because S.A. got hammered. There. What is worth the read is something we may have not known before or something that has a true analytic quality to it. Of course that is a standard that not everyone can reproduce consistently, and there are posts just for fun.

Anyway, I wasn't insulting PF as I was poking fun. Which of course, is between him and I... I shall post as I see fit. You can critique my post, but you have no invitation to teach me how to post. Thanks.

Okay, this stupid argument has gone on long enough.

What he said was quite obviously.. obvious.. but he said it because of the question that was asked. Someone (Pup Clarke I think) had posted suggesting that the South Africans could not have bowled any better, so a seemingly obvious post was required to point out that this was not the case. People were blaming Kallis for the loss where the bowling was quite clearly the main problem - you shouldn't be expected to have to chase 377. South Africa bowled trash and that point was being over-looked, so as obvious as you thought it was, it had to be mentioned.

You whinge and posts that aren't worth reading and yet you've incited about 10 of them yourself with this stupid argument which were far less worth reading than a post pointing out a team's main problem in the match.

 

[Evermind]

What he said was quite obviously.. obvious.. but he said it because of the question that was asked. Someone (Pup Clarke I think) had posted suggesting that the South Africans could not have bowled any better, so a seemingly obvious post was required to point out that this was not the case. People were blaming Kallis for the loss where the bowling was quite clearly the main problem - you shouldn't be expected to have to chase 377. South Africa bowled trash and that point was being over-looked, so as obvious as you thought it was, it had to be mentioned.

Though I agree that 377 shouldn't really be a score the Aussies should've put up against SA's bowling attack (thereby implying that they didn't bowl well), when you look at the context of the game, it's not hard to blame Kallis. He was pretty much the ONLY batsman to score so slowly.

If you're taking the number 377 out of context, it's huge, but with the ultra-heavy-duty bats of today (as Chappell and Greig were remarking after Hayden's one-handed mis-hit went for 6), flat as hell pitches and short grounds, and SA bettering Aus at 201-1 (or something like that) there is no reason they should've lost. Smith and AB gave them a huge start - the pitch looked more innocuous than a wounded bunny. Kallis pretty much lost the plot on a pitch where 377 was the equivalent of a 250 on a ground of 5 years ago. I'm not sure whether it's fair to blame it on "selfishness" (these guys are pros at the highest level I don't think they're gonna be so puerile) but it was pretty much all upto him.

 

[Prince EWS]

Though I agree that 377 shouldn't really be a score the Aussies should've put up against SA's bowling attack (thereby implying that they didn't bowl well), when you look at the context of the game, it's not hard to blame Kallis. He was pretty much the ONLY batsman to score so slowly.

If you're taking the number 377 out of context, it's huge, but with the ultra-heavy-duty bats of today (as Chappell and Greig were remarking after Hayden's one-handed mis-hit went for 6), flat as hell pitches and short grounds, and SA bettering Aus at 201-1 (or something like that) there is no reason they should've lost. Smith and AB gave them a huge start - the pitch looked more innocuous than a wounded bunny. Kallis pretty much lost the plot on a pitch where 377 was the equivalent of a 250 on a ground of 5 years ago. I'm not sure whether it's fair to blame it on "selfishness" (these guys are pros at the highest level I don't think they're gonna be so puerile) but it was pretty much all upto him.

Nope, I refuse to believe that any team "should" chase down 377, unless they get off to the most ridiculous of starts ever. Smith and de Villiers did do a lot to put them in a fairly decent position, but I still don't think it was anywhere close to be a winning position once AB got run out and Smith went off hurt.

Kallis may not have played a great innings, but it's quite obvious to me that the bowlers should be under the pump for the loss, not him.

 

[Evermind]

Nope, I refuse to believe that any team "should" chase down 377, unless they get off to the most ridiculous of starts ever. Smith and de Villiers did do a lot to put them in a fairly decent position, but I still don't think it was anywhere close to be a winning position once AB got run out and Smith went off hurt.

Kallis may not have played a great innings, but it's quite obvious to me that the bowlers should be under the pump for the loss, not him.

Look at these bowling figures:

Bowling O M R W Econ
NW Bracken 9 0 40 2 4.44
SW Tait 10 0 61 2 6.10 (1nb, 4w)
GD McGrath 9 0 62 1 6.88
SR Watson 8 1 46 1 5.75 (2w)
GB Hogg 10 0 61 3 6.10 (1w)
A Symonds 2 0 19 0 9.50

Bracken is the only one doing well here. On a pitch where McGrath goes for 6.88 per over, all bets are off: are you telling me that out of TWELVE bowlers utilised in the match, by the top 2 teams in the world, only ONE managed to bowl well and the rest were bowling very badly? I doubt it.

SA were 220/2 in the 32nd over. That's a damn good start.

 

[Prince EWS]

Look at these bowling figures:

Bowling O M R W Econ
NW Bracken 9 0 40 2 4.44
SW Tait 10 0 61 2 6.10 (1nb, 4w)
GD McGrath 9 0 62 1 6.88
SR Watson 8 1 46 1 5.75 (2w)
GB Hogg 10 0 61 3 6.10 (1w)
A Symonds 2 0 19 0 9.50

Bracken is the only one doing well here. On a pitch where McGrath goes for 6.88 per over, all bets are off: are you telling me that out of TWELVE bowlers utilised in the match, by the top 2 teams in the world, only ONE managed to bowl well and the rest were bowling very badly? I doubt it.

I reckon it was about a 300-320 par pitch - 377 is completely unrealistic as a "par" though. Hence, South Africa bowled poorly as a whole. Given that standard, Hogg, Watson, Tait and Bracken all bowled decently to well.