*Official* England in South Africa Thread

[tooextracool]

No you weren't but you can go back to ignore list, you've been shown up so many times already it's worthless reading your endless drivel.

well obviously it wasnt to you, because you werent following the argument. the argument started off about england in ODIs without flintoff and harmison. and seeing as i was continuing the argument from there it is fairly obvious. of course when i specifically mentioned 'in tests' in my next post you still didnt have the common sense to get the point.
as far as me being on your ignore list is concerned, personally i dont even give a ****. its rather pathetic and childish of you to put people on them, perhaps it only suggests how much of a fool you really are.

 

[Pratters]

no one ever said they were certain. people only thought that was the case. in the same way that no one can say for certain that 'god' exists or ever existed. you can only think he did.

I know that no one should logically say with certainty. But people did after that Ganesha incident. In their mind they were certain. But it was infact an error. So certainties in the mind of people will not always be true.

 

[tooextracool]

no IMO they simply believed something like that was true, a certainity is something that is proven right. personally i think that we both have different meanings of the word certainity. you think that someone thinks he can be certain, i dont. IMO anyone who is certain has to be right.

 

[Pratters]

personally i think that we both have different meanings

I agree.

 

[SpeedKing]

why would you still pick geraint jones?

i based my team on the squad that is in SA and as i understand read is not in the ODI squad and also jones was in quite good OD form in Zimbabwe( although that doesn't matter much coz its Z'bwe)

 

[SpeedKing]

I agree.

does that mean you agree and have ended the argument on th gibbs dissmissal

 

[tooextracool]

i based my team on the squad that is in SA and as i understand read is not in the ODI squad and also jones was in quite good OD form in Zimbabwe( although that doesn't matter much coz its Z'bwe)

well if read isnt in the squad then there is no option. but really jones is nowhere near as good as read is in the wicket keeping ability, and i doubt that hes as good as read with the bat either,especially at 7.

 

[tooextracool]

does that mean you agree and have ended the argument on th gibbs dissmissal

well our argument didnt have anything to do with the gibbs dismissal, so i would guess not.

 

[marc71178]

I stil think Napier could do a job, he was leading wicket taker in the Norwich Union a couple of years ago.

Which means he can get County batsmen out - that doesn't necessarily mean a thing.

 

[Mr Casson]

Science proved it was a phenomena explained by some physics law. So certainities of some people may not always be true.

Phenomenon.

 

[Mr Casson]

fact is that the best umpires are the ones that make the least mistakes, not the ones who always make the right decisions because that is realistically impossible.

Perhaps there is something you are not considering there: the best umpires are the ones who make the most correct decisions. Some umpires might have to make a lot more decisions than others, whereas the umpire who makes the least mistakes might have only had one decision to make and botched it up!

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Wharf's batting is only existent when he is slggin for Glamorgan in One Dayers. I stil think Napier could do a job, he was leading wicket taker in the Norwich Union a couple of years ago.

Yeh and he only gives up nigh on 5 runs per over to get those wickets. Admittedly he was a lot better last season...

 

[Tom Halsey]

Umpires do give people out only when they are certain. And he have more than 1 dismissal by lbw in two tests.

Hawkeye showed it hitting middle IIRC.

Hawkeye isn't perfect, but it won't be wrong by that much. When something would probably have hit middle, hit the batsman in line, I fail to see what doubt there is.

 

[tooextracool]

Perhaps there is something you are not considering there: the best umpires are the ones who make the most correct decisions. Some umpires might have to make a lot more decisions than others, whereas the umpire who makes the least mistakes might have only had one decision to make and botched it up!

conversely someone like shephard who is really experienced might have made more correct decisions than anyone else ATM, yet he might have made many many wrong decisions too, far more than say an inexperienced umpire. the best way to look at it then is to take a ratio between the number of right and wrong decisions.

 

[SpeedKing]

why are you people still going on about how certain the umpire was???? as i understand, when the umpires have their meeting and they use hawkeye to find evidence, they are going to give Mr. aleem dar (or was it bucknor) a pat on their back and say good decision. even if hawkeye is slightly wrong, the ball would have still hit the stumps atleast.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

4 more days of rain please

 

[Pratters]

Hawkeye showed it hitting middle IIRC.

Hawkeye isn't perfect

Hawkeye can be wrong. I am bored of the topic already. As it is, I mentioned one decision shouldnt be held responsible for the decision of the match. England bowled very well to take 10 wickets in two sessions. Lets end this no point debate..

Peace.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

4 more days of rain please

Boo. That's not good for cricket. Beat 'em properly.

 

[twctopcat]

Jon Lewis is gonna own, mark my words.

 

[Scaly piscine]

I do hate these Tests where winning the toss is probably vital.