MacGill must tour India - Ganguly

[Tom Halsey]

'CricInfo disagreed with you'. Real conclusive evidence that.

While it may not be a turner - CricInfo doesn't work all the time.

 

[tooextracool]

'CricInfo disagreed with you'. Real conclusive evidence that.

While it may not be a turner - CricInfo doesn't work all the time.

no it doesnt....but how often are they wrong? maybe 20% of the time? id take something thats right 80% of the time especially if its backed by someone else. the chances of cricinfo and me being wrong are considerably lower than the chances of richard being wrong i can assure you

 

[marc71178]

Had I been on here I'd have said it was what it was - an empty gesture.
Which became more empty as time wore on.

So all but giving up his lucrative contract for a cause is empty is it?

 

[Son Of Coco]

It was pointless - had he not stated that he was unwilling to go to Zimbabwe, it would not have made any difference.
As no Test squad travelled anyway, he would not have gone.
It does not mean it was not a perfectly legitimate decision, though - I fully understand anyone who does not want to go to Zimbabwe. It must be a terrible thing, it can't be possible for all the awful sights to be hidden.

I think me saying I wasn't going to Zimbabwe would have been pointless, cause let's face it, chances were I wasn't going anyway.

 

[Richard]

So all but giving up his lucrative contract for a cause is empty is it?

If he could make a difference to that cause, no, of course not, but he couldn't.
I repeat, though, I don't blame him for not wanting to go to Zimbabwe - I certainly have no desire to see anyone close to me go anywhere near the place.
(And I don't like going overseas, anyway)

 

[Richard]

no it doesnt....but how often are they wrong? maybe 20% of the time? id take something thats right 80% of the time especially if its backed by someone else. the chances of cricinfo and me being wrong are considerably lower than the chances of richard being wrong i can assure you

Err, no, they're not. You'd just like to think they are.

 

[Richard]

yes like the time when you said the perth wicket was a turner, despite the fact that cricinfo disagreed with you. oh yes made up stuff that.
or the time that you thought ealham's batting abilities were just about as good as any other no 7 around the world......

Similar, indeed, to the "fact" that Ealham never bowled at the death and hardly ever bowled in the first 15.
And the WACA pitch was a turner, if you had the chance to see that you might. But of course, it wouldn't suit you, because a fingerspinner got good figures on it, and you need as many cases of fingerspinners doing well on non-turners as you can get.

 

[Swervy]

(And I don't like going overseas, anyway)

when would you have time to go abroad anyway, what with all that cricket film you need to study

 

[Richard]

One of the many things I'd prefer be doing than going abroad.

 

[Son Of Coco]

One of the many things I'd prefer be doing than going abroad.

haha, yeah don't go abroad mate, you might learn stuff.

 

[Richard]

I don't need to go to Zimbabwe - I'm not one of those that are just ignoring what's going on there and pretending it's not.

 

[tooextracool]

Similar, indeed, to the "fact" that Ealham never bowled at the death and hardly ever bowled in the first 15.

and in fact you have been able to prove me wrong there havent you?
i still stand by the opinion that ealham rarely ever bowled at the death or in the 15, of course there were odd occasions when he did so, as i said earlier, most of them having to do with playing poor quality sides, games that are already won, or times when 2 or more frontline bowlers got smashed out of the park earlier on.

And the WACA pitch was a turner, if you had the chance to see that you might. But of course, it wouldn't suit you, because a fingerspinner got good figures on it, and you need as many cases of fingerspinners doing well on non-turners as you can get.

oh i watched all 5 days of that test match live believe me....an amazing test match it was, i wouldnt miss australia being hammered all over the park at home for anything. and i distinctly remember watching one of the most brilliant spells by any spin bowler on an extremely flat wicket. even shane warne couldnt get anything out of that wicket.

 

[tooextracool]

Err, no, they're not. You'd just like to think they are.

nope id take 2 persons opinion about a wicket over one persons anyday.

 

[Richard]

and in fact you have been able to prove me wrong there havent you?
i still stand by the opinion that ealham rarely ever bowled at the death or in the 15, of course there were odd occasions when he did so, as i said earlier, most of them having to do with playing poor quality sides, games that are already won, or times when 2 or more frontline bowlers got smashed out of the park earlier on.

This is getting more and more ludicrous - whatever the reasons, it happened all the time.
The reason I've not proved you wrong is because I really do enjoy your continued insistance on the matter - you insist it over and over again, and you look more and more stupid every time.
Of course, when you eventually realise your mistake you'll probably try and make comments like the above to get out of it, but the fact is, you never once mentioned why Ealham bowled at stages outside the 20-40 period, you just said "he didn't", trying to prove that he bowled at the easiest stages of the innings. And the reasons why he didn't bowl at these stages is irrelevant - it is equally difficult and he did it with equal skill.

oh i watched all 5 days of that test match live believe me....an amazing test match it was, i wouldnt miss australia being hammered all over the park at home for anything. and i distinctly remember watching one of the most brilliant spells by any spin bowler on an extremely flat wicket. even shane warne couldnt get anything out of that wicket.

And it's not been the first time Warne would have wasted a helpful pitch, I've already shown plenty of examples and I'll name them again if you want.
I too remember an excellent spell, a fingerspinner exploiting all a fingerspinner can possibly exploit.

 

[Richard]

nope id take 2 persons opinion about a wicket over one persons anyday.

Especially if one of those 2 was you.

 

[tooextracool]

yes because my opinion is just about as valid as yours.....

 

[tooextracool]

This is getting more and more ludicrous - whatever the reasons, it happened all the time.
The reason I've not proved you wrong is because I really do enjoy your continued insistance on the matter - you insist it over and over again, and you look more and more stupid every time.
Of course, when you eventually realise your mistake you'll probably try and make comments like the above to get out of it, but the fact is, you never once mentioned why Ealham bowled at stages outside the 20-40 period, you just said "he didn't", trying to prove that he bowled at the easiest stages of the innings. And the reasons why he didn't bowl at these stages is irrelevant - it is equally difficult and he did it with equal skill.

which shows how dyslexic you really are....time and time again ive said that its easier to bowl in the middle overs than it is in the first 15 because there are no field restrictions, indeed any fool will know that. and bowling in the last 10 overs is obviously a lot harder because the batsman generally throw everything at it. the fact that ealham has a high average and a low ER makes him fit the bill of 15-40 overs bowler perfectly.

And it's not been the first time Warne would have wasted a helpful pitch, I've already shown plenty of examples and I'll name them again if you want.
I too remember an excellent spell, a fingerspinner exploiting all a fingerspinner can possibly exploit.

oh and warne has wasted many a helpful wicket, but the difference being that on all those wickets he got turn on them. the fact is on this wicket he didnt get much turn at all, because the wicket wasnt a turner!!

 

[Son Of Coco]

I don't need to go to Zimbabwe - I'm not one of those that are just ignoring what's going on there and pretending it's not.

Well no, Zimbabwe isn't exactly a tourist mecca at the mement though I'd imagine. Incidentally, it sounds like MacGill is of the same mindset as you on the Zimbabwe issue! (and I agree)

 

[Son Of Coco]

This is getting more and more ludicrous - whatever the reasons, it happened all the time.
The reason I've not proved you wrong is because I really do enjoy your continued insistance on the matter - you insist it over and over again, and you look more and more stupid every time.
Of course, when you eventually realise your mistake you'll probably try and make comments like the above to get out of it, but the fact is, you never once mentioned why Ealham bowled at stages outside the 20-40 period, you just said "he didn't", trying to prove that he bowled at the easiest stages of the innings. And the reasons why he didn't bowl at these stages is irrelevant - it is equally difficult and he did it with equal skill.

And it's not been the first time Warne would have wasted a helpful pitch, I've already shown plenty of examples and I'll name them again if you want.
I too remember an excellent spell, a fingerspinner exploiting all a fingerspinner can possibly exploit.

Please, I missed the bit about Warne wasting helpful pitches, I need to hear it. It may well go along side Lucky McGrath and his 400 wickets haha

 

[Richard]

yes because my opinion is just about as valid as yours.....

Yes, it is.
But this is not a case of opinion - it is fact that Trescothick's dismissal did not result from movement, but from playing inside the line. Just because you and someone else has got that wrong does not suddenly make you right.