***Official*** South Africa v West Indies

[Pratters]

It's no real use arguing with you, but I will say this - if Chris Gayle can't get credit for scoring runs in England, where no one thought he would, he clearly won't ever please you. It's no sense in me trying to state on his behalf in that case.

I would say the same for Grame Smith. I am surprised you can bring this arguement for Gayle when you brushed it aside when I said it for Graeme Smith.

 

[marc71178]

Difference being Smith only scored runs when England bowled extremely woefully.

Gayle however scored runs when they were bowling better.

 

[Link]

Smith scored much more though

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I would say the same for Grame Smith. I am surprised you can bring this arguement for Gayle when you brushed it aside when I said it for Graeme Smith.

I never claimed Gayle a better batsman than Graeme Smith by any means, so I see no relevance of you bringing this up other than sour grapes at Sudeep, Neil and I demolishing your Smith stance.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

gayle's leave is completely different(on the odd occasion that he chooses to do so). im surprised that someone whos watched gayle extensively as you probably have done thinks that gayles leaves the ball by playing the inside line like tresco does. gayle lets the ball go, just like other players do.

I never said it's been a hallmark of his career. I stated that he did it twice in the last Test and it got him out. If he can eliminate that from his technical approach, he'll be better off. Also, as someone who has watched Gayle extensively, he does leave many balls alone outside the offstump and did so in England too.

Mefinks that Matthew Hoggard over has disturbed your memory.

why should he? its never caused him any real problems, in fact it ensures that if he doesnt read a ball properly and the ball comes in, hes still in a safe position. and its saved him on plenty of occasions too, otherwise hed be plumb lbw.

The fact that Trescothick playing inside the line has saved him only reflects terribly on other aspects of his technique. My original point - if he left the ball alone in an orthodox manner, it wouldn't be "rare" dismissals in that fashion. It would be "no" dismissals in that fashion.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Smith scored much more though

He's a better Test batsman at this stage in his career.

 

[Pratters]

I never claimed Gayle a better batsman than Graeme Smith by any means, so I see no relevance of you bringing this up other than sour grapes at Sudeep, Neil and I demolishing your Smith stance.

No you didnt. The relevence is you didnt think much into Smithy being a good enough when the scored the runs in England and now you bring that arguement for Gayle!

Smith vs Kirsten. You people went head over heels saying Kirsten is better. Which is clearly not the case.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

No you didnt. The relevence is you didnt think much into Smithy being a good enough when the scored the runs in England and now you bring that arguement for Gayle!

Had the English bowlers bowled to Gayle the tripe they bowled to Smith, he would have scored even more runs.

Smith vs Kirsten. You people went head over heels saying Kirsten is better. Which is clearly not the case.

It's good that you realize that you can categorically state that even in the light of everything we presented. Stubborn is as stubborn does I guess. Tendulkar anyone?

 

[Pratters]

Had the English bowlers bowled to Gayle the tripe they bowled to Smith, he would have scored even more runs.

A player can face only what he is iven. Scoring runs in England is what you were emphasising at.

It's good that you realize that you can categorically state that even in the light of everything we presented. Stubborn is as stubborn does I guess. Tendulkar anyone?

Its not called stubborn. Its trying to prove some thing which is not true which was the case with you, Neil, Sudeep.

No way can you proe Kirsten v Smith Gary Kirsten is better

About Tendulkar, its time before his career is over. People are early to assume he is past his best. Nothing stubborn about me on it.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

A player can face only what he is iven. Scoring runs in England is what you were emphasising at.

Bravo. Thus you realize how irrelevant your Smith point is.
The above is a clear concession that the bowling was tripe and considering that both batsmen didn't face the same standard of bowling, I'm not sure what you wanted to achieve.

Its not called stubborn. Its trying to prove some thing which is not true which was the case with you, Neil, Sudeep.

Ah, well it's fantastic of you to realize that you can categorically state what is what. No debating with you I gather.

No way can you proe Kirsten v Smith Gary Kirsten is better

No way you can prove it's the other way around either. For that matter, there's no way you can prove Lara isn't better than Bradman or that Neil Pickup isn't the savior of British cricket. That's how healthy debates are built. Not through superiority (of opinion) complexes.

 

[Pratters]

No way you can prove it's the other way around either. For that matter, there's no way you can prove Lara isn't better than Bradman or that Neil Pickup isn't the savior of British cricket. That's how healthy debates are built. Not through superiority (of opinion) complexes.

If that is the opinion you garner, then you shouldnt term me as stubborn when I bring forward a point as well. Double standards

 

[Pratters]

Bravo. Thus you realize how irrelevant your Smith point is.
The above is a clear concession that the bowling was tripe and considering that both batsmen didn't face the same standard of bowling, I'm not sure what you wanted to achieve.

Ah, well it's fantastic of you to realize that you can categorically state what is what. No debating with you I gather.

Dont assume things. Even if I believe your point that the bowling was tripe for England when he scored the runs versus Sout Africa which I did to put forward your point, it would be immaterial because according to you Gayle can play as he did in England!

Just shows how irrelevent your point on Gayle is, not mine.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

If that is the opinion you garner, then you shouldnt term me as stubborn when I bring forward a point as well. Double standards

You stubborn in that you give absolutely no concession in an argument. You have your points and even when those are rebutted more cleverly, you continue to restate. (See CW XI forum)

That's not a healthy debate.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Dont assume things. Even if I believe your point that the bowling was tripe for England when he scored the runs versus Sout Africa which I did to put forward your point, it would be immaterial because according to you Gayle can play as he did in England!

Just shows how irrelevent your point on Gayle is, not mine.

I think you're the only one who sees it that way though. Gayle did not face crap bowling. Simple as that.

 

[Pratters]

You stubborn in that you give absolutely no concession in an argument. You have your points and even when those are rebutted more cleverly, you continue to restate. (See CW XI forum)

That's not a healthy debate.

I do not give concession in an arguement if I do not think a valid point is made. Which is what every one does.

The CW XI debate you are speaking about, I made a small point which was being not understood by PURPOSE. It had nothing to do with me being stubborn or not stubborn.

 

[Pratters]

I think you're the only one who sees it that way though. Gayle did not face crap bowling. Simple as that.

The logic you gave was for Gayle has technical ability cos he made runs in England. And Smith di the similar thing if I am not mistaken. So what applies for one should apply for the other. The crap bowling you are speaking about, well a good batsman can even make a good attack look crap.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Let's not go down a road of pointless arguments please.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

The logic you gave was for Gayle has technical ability cos he made runs in England. And Smith di the similar thing if I am not mistaken. So what applies for one should apply for the other. The crap bowling you are speaking about, well a good batsman can even make a good attack look crap.

Jah! Are you serious? Two things here:

1. The bowling was quite visibly crap! You're clearly clutching at air now.
2. Technical ability tends to be tested better by decent bowling. Funny thing about the game.

 

[Pratters]

1. The bowling was quite visibly crap! You're clearly clutching at air now.
2. Technical ability tends to be tested better by decent bowling. Funny thing about the game.

Explain how the bowling was crap when Smith faced an English attack and it could test the technical abilitiy of a player when Gayle played.

When some one makes as many runs as Smith did in England, you just dont discount it to poor bowling.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Explain how the bowling was crap when Smith faced an English attack and it could test the technical abilitiy of a player when Gayle played.

They did not bowl almost every delivery short and on the legs on Gayle. How much simpler can I make this?

When some one makes as many runs as Smith did in England, you just dont discount it to poor bowling.

When the bowling is as poor as it was, you do. Well, perhaps YOU don't but, that's an entirely different issue.

I'm not sure how many different ways I can state this.