***Official*** Australia in South Africa 2018

[SeamUp]

Is that recent?

That is definitely a premeditated sort of reply haha.

No idea. These pics are just floating around social media.

But I have read that Sonny Bill is close with a number of Saffer cricketers. So the above makes sense. So guess they have the inside scoop.

 

[TT Boy]

The Amla and Tahir picture is from when South Africa last toured New Zealand and the de Kock picture must be old as de Kock has a sleeve tattoo now.

 

[burr]

Starc's bowling in that test - wow. What a rare talent.

 

[burr]

QdK looks about 12 in that picture.

 

[Gnske]

QdK looks about 12 in that picture.

Must definitely be recent then

 

[Pup Clarke]

Sledging just gives an insight as to what kind of person you are. Hope reporters can just move on from this non-issue

 

[GRAB]

Must definitely be recent then

He and Parthiv come from the same baby-face-keeper production line?

 

[Bolo]

Can you say, briefly and succinctly, one thing I've said that you disagree with?

Here are the salient points of this conversation in a nutshell:

You've accepted an argument for which the demonstrating he must be bad without swing. The argument if accepted by implication means stats are irrelevant, because any stats are necessarily incorrect.

You've made a statistical argument anyway, but have used too small a sample size to be statistically meaningful. At best this is weakly indicative, and we must rely on interpretation of the stats using factors like watching him bowl to assess.

You've used a set of stats with a demonstrable selection bias, evidenced both statistically (peer group analysis, bearing in mind that bowlers bowl opening or change based on what they are good at) or subjectively (analysis of group selected).

Anyone of these alone necessitates a reassessment of your statistical analysis. You haven't actually tried to disprove any of these 3, leave alone all 3 simultaneously, and are instead focusing on tangential points.

 

[ImpatientLime]

Yeah not just saying it for the sake of it but by the book he has walked off the field (said a few words in reply to what he was receiving) and walked into the dressing room.

Warners actions can only be punished for his aggression he showed off the field. Gilchrist said what if his team mates weren't there to stop him.

haha as if

there isn't a bigger 'hold me back lads! i'll ****ing do him!' merchant in sport than dave warner.

an absolute *********.

 

[DriveClub]

If i was in SA I'd take a SBW billboard for the next test. Will be glorious

 

[Burgey]

If there was a line, I would draw it at anything personal not related to cricket. So calling someone a crap player would be fine, or fat (they are professional athletes).

Going after someone's wife in the Sarwan style is fine, cos it wasn't personal, but referencing a cheating wife isn't.

Cheating wife becomes fair play if you make it personal by going after a guys looks first though, and is understandable if you've spent the whole day being a tool first.

Warner hadn’t even met his wife when the SBW incident happened. It was a decade or more ago.

 

[Bolo]

Warner hadn’t even met his wife when the SBW incident happened. It was a decade or more ago.

Ah. Marginally less insulting, but still over the line.

 

[JRC67]

If there was a line, I would draw it at anything personal not related to cricket. So calling someone a crap player would be fine, or fat (they are professional athletes).

Going after someone's wife in the Sarwan style is fine, cos it wasn't personal, but referencing a cheating wife isn't.

Cheating wife becomes fair play if you make it personal by going after a guys looks first though, and is understandable if you've spent the whole day being a tool first.

I think the point is everyone has a different line, which is why umpires should be allowed to send off any odious moron like Warner every time he opens his mouth. Make his team play the rest of the match with 10 men and fine him all his match fee. Australian cricket players seem to feel there is some mythical line of good taste they define. The common thread when cricket descends to this level is Australia and normally Warner. There can't be many neutrals not backing South Africa for the rest of the series.

 

[Gob]

There is a line for everything ffs

 

[TheJediBrah]

Here are the salient points of this conversation in a nutshell:

You've accepted an argument for which the demonstrating he must be bad without swing. The argument if accepted by implication means stats are irrelevant, because any stats are necessarily incorrect.

You've made a statistical argument anyway, but have used too small a sample size to be statistically meaningful. At best this is weakly indicative, and we must rely on interpretation of the stats using factors like watching him bowl to assess.

You've used a set of stats with a demonstrable selection bias, evidenced both statistically (peer group analysis, bearing in mind that bowlers bowl opening or change based on what they are good at) or subjectively (analysis of group selected).

Anyone of these alone necessitates a reassessment of your statistical analysis. You haven't actually tried to disprove any of these 3, leave alone all 3 simultaneously, and are instead focusing on tangential points.

As I said What do you disagree with?

You keep bringing up a whole lot of irrelevant and long-winded points. I was never trying to use statistics to prove my point. I brought up those statistics to counter the statistics (which were also obviously not statistically significant) that you were referring to as supporting your point. Which they actually didn't.

 

[stephen]

There is a line for everything ffs

Yeah this is what people fail to realise.

A guy sledges you with "this guy is crap" and that's fine. A guy sledges you with "I hope your daughter gets cancer" and that's definitely not fine.

Honestly, sledging is fine when it's about the player's skill or about how much you dislike the player. It's not fine when you start attacking the player's family directly. And if you are going to have a go at someone's family, you need to make sure it's actually funny (like the your wife and my kids line). And obviously you don't attack someone's wife/mother/daughter if there's been a really public health scare or scandal or something like that either.

Honestly it's common sense. Anyone in Warner's position would get pissed off when someone brings up the SBW affair. But I don't think he'd get quite so annoyed if QDK said something akin to the "your wife and my kids" line. The first is a personal attack and the second is not.

Did anyone read Steve Waugh's autobiography? One of the cheapest/nastiest things I've heard was when (I forget which side) played recordings of Bevan having *** that they could hear through the paper-thin hotel walls.

 

[Loose Cannon]

Could we rename this thread?

I'm just worried that some losers might derail this fascinating discussion by talking about cricket over the next 5 days.

 

[TheJediBrah]

A guy sledges you with "this guy is crap" and that's fine. A guy sledges you with "I hope your daughter gets cancer" and that's definitely not fine.

No because if an Australian says someone crossed a line then they just made it up and they're hypocritical. So there's nothing with saying "I hope your daughter gets cancer".

#cricketweblogic

 

[Daemon]

Yeah this is what people fail to realise.

A guy sledges you with "this guy is crap" and that's fine. A guy sledges you with "I hope your daughter gets cancer" and that's definitely not fine.

Honestly, sledging is fine when it's about the player's skill or about how much you dislike the player. It's not fine when you start attacking the player's family directly. And if you are going to have a go at someone's family, you need to make sure it's actually funny (like the your wife and my kids line). And obviously you don't attack someone's wife/mother/daughter if there's been a really public health scare or scandal or something like that either.

Honestly it's common sense. Anyone in Warner's position would get pissed off when someone brings up the SBW affair. But I don't think he'd get quite so annoyed if QDK said something akin to the "your wife and my kids" line. The first is a personal attack and the second is not.

Did anyone read Steve Waugh's autobiography? One of the cheapest/nastiest things I've heard was when (I forget which side) played recordings of Bevan having *** that they could hear through the paper-thin hotel walls.

I don't think anyone said qdk's quip on his wife was acceptable though, so what's your point?

It's funny how you demonstrate how arbitrary the line is in this very post by saying attacking family is wrong, unless of course it's funny which then makes it ok because hey that's just toeing the line.

 

[Burner]