[My Article] The State of England Bowling

[BhupinderSingh]

A tip for the original poster: this one (ie, the one who posted the above quoted) is well-known to all regulars as a Durham-phile. Don't take this remotely seriously, anyone who genuinely argues that Harmison is better than Hoggard because they bowl at the wrong time very obviously doesn't have a clue what they're on about. And he's not joking, he honestly does believe this.

Says the person who thinks Nasser Hussain>> Matthew Hayden

 

[Richard]

Yes, indeed. I have stated very obvious and transparent reasons for such a thing. Suggesting little unspecific things like "they bowl at the wrong time" (a watered-down version) is unutterably ludicrous.

 

[Prince EWS]

Absolutely no intention whatsoever of doing said, if I didn't say it someone else might well do. That was an unfair piece of criticism (stating something that was wholly ludicrous) aimed at a fairly reasonable attempt from a new member, and I called it as such.

I've read his offering in reply, and have no intention of saying a thing to it, as, as Rob mentions, there's only one thing it'd result in.

There are parts of that article I disagree with, pretty much exactly what Bennett said, but that passage was IMO pretty out-of-order.

Picking apart what SP said and arguing with it is fine, but your post was about SP more than his post, which isn't on.

 

[Richard]

It was about a trait of his posting that pretty much everyone realises not to take seriously - even you yourself have said so in the not-so-distant past.

Had this been an experienced member on the receiving-end he'd have known exactly how to take that post. Being new, however, he presumably wouldn't, so I filled him in.

 

[pasag]

It was about a trait of his posting that pretty much everyone realises not to take seriously - even you yourself have said so in the not-so-distant past.

Had this been an experienced member on the receiving-end he'd have known exactly how to take that post. Being new, however, he presumably wouldn't, so I filled him in.

Whilst his post here may have been abit over the top in its criticism, your reply was totally uncalled for and unwarranted.

The jibes at Scaly have to stop.

 

[Richard]

It all depends, doesn't it, on what a jibe is. Do you wish to completely gag me from remotely referring to his posts? If neccessary, we can implement that. But I hardly see that that's a mature attitude, from anyone.

Criticism should be allowed, regardless of whether it's the first or the 15,000,000th time.

 

[pasag]

It all depends, doesn't it, on what a jibe is. Do you wish to completely gag me from remotely referring to his posts? If neccessary, we can implement that. But I hardly see that that's a mature attitude, from anyone.

Criticism should be allowed, regardless of whether it's the first or the 15,000,000th time.

Actually it would be a start, so yes please and if Scaly could please do the same regarding Richard, I think the forum would be a much more pleasant place, tbh.

 

[Richard]

It'd be more than a start. If neither of us remotely refer to each other, that would completely sort what you see as being a problem.

It will, though, as far as I'm concerned, mean many silly posts go uncalled as what they are. In this instance, for example, Perm said exactly the same thing as me (I went into a bit more detail, obviously). I don't see why people should be disallowed from calling a silly post a silly post, just because they do it to the same person quite often, whereas others do it less often.

Anyway, this is probably best not discussed here, I suppose.

 

[pasag]

It'd be more than a start. If neither of us remotely refer to each other, that would completely sort what you see as being a problem.

It will, though, as far as I'm concerned, mean many silly posts go uncalled as what they are. In this instance, for example, Perm said exactly the same thing as me (I went into a bit more detail, obviously). I don't see why people should be disallowed from calling a silly post a silly post, just because they do it to the same person quite often, whereas others do it less often.

Anyway, this is probably best not discussed here, I suppose.

If you feel his post crossed the line, report it. If you think it's crap, rebut it. But don't attack the poster.

 

[Richard]

As I say - hopefully I'll get on MSN sometime in the next day or so so as I can discuss it with you - it needs to be done, TBH.

 

[pasag]

As I say - hopefully I'll get on MSN sometime in the next day or so so as I can discuss it with you - it needs to be done, TBH.

If you like I'm happy to discuss it, but this is coming from the mod team as a whole, not just me.

 

[Scaly piscine]

It'd be more than a start. If neither of us remotely refer to each other, that would completely sort what you see as being a problem.

It will, though, as far as I'm concerned, mean many silly posts go uncalled as what they are. In this instance, for example, Perm said exactly the same thing as me (I went into a bit more detail, obviously). I don't see why people should be disallowed from calling a silly post a silly post, just because they do it to the same person quite often, whereas others do it less often.

Anyway, this is probably best not discussed here, I suppose.

No, you used the opportunity to have yet another dig at me - there was practically nothing you said that concerned what I posted and it's happened plenty of times before. As it happens the quoted part was probably the strongest part of the argument anyway (it's pretty obviously if you have two players with similar records, one who's consistent and one who's hot and cold for various reasons that if you take out a lot of their 'cold' games they'll have the better record now and hence be the better player given that scenario).

As for the original post, I'm sure they expect to be shot at when they're posting their own, fairly long article in a forum they've never posted in before - they're obviously intelligent so they'll realise that it'll get picked apart somewhere along the line, especially if they posted it somewhere else.

I don't care whether people ignore me, hate me, like me. I don't care whether people have an aggressive, blunt style like me or they sugar coat everything and are a bit of a big girl's blouse. If you can't take someone that's your own problem, but don't make up for it by making stupid digs at people and harass them for months on end.

 

[Richard]

If you don't care, you wouldn't make such a to-do about supposedly being harrassed.

 

[Richard]

If you like I'm happy to discuss it, but this is coming from the mod team as a whole, not just me.

Yeah, am quite aware of that. Not likely there'd be a chance to have the whole team online at once, though.

 

[pasag]

Yeah, am quite aware of that. Not likely there'd be a chance to have the whole team online at once, though.

Well if you'd like to address all the moderators you could send an email to the mod email account, it might not be as ideal for you as MSN but it would be alot more effective at getting your message across to the group as a whole.

Anyways, enough about this, back to England's (dire ) bowling attack, any more posts not on topic will be deleted.

 

[Richard]

Think Bennett said it all, TBH. Hoggard and Flintoff are the only two decent seamers we have at present.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Hoggard and Flintoff are the only two decent seamers we have at present.

Always thought that Jon Lewis could be a pretty good test bowler. That might still be an oppurtunity for him because of Harmison's injury.

 

[Richard]

Maybe. But he hardly impressed in his single Test - barely swung so much as a single ball all game, and that was with Hoggard at one point bending it around corners.

Obviously, you don't write a player off on one game.

 

[Prince EWS]

Always thought that Jon Lewis could be a pretty good test bowler. That might still be an oppurtunity for him because of Harmison's injury.

I think he'd only really be of any use in Hoggard's role unless the conditions were very favourable to him, and I'm very sure Hoggard > Lewis, so there's no place for him.

 

[Pup Clarke]

I think he'd only really be of any use in Hoggard's role unless the conditions were very favourable to him, and I'm very sure Hoggard > Lewis, so there's no place for him.

That's what they said of Sidebottom. And look how well be performed in the test series even with Hoggard in the team. Lewis and Hoggard in the same team wouldn't be as bad an idea as some think as there both pretty accurate bowlers who don't give much away.