Nah, a much better forum than CricSim, in fact. You're already a member. So is MattO.Hahaha, was that on cricsim PEWS? I mean, I love Ponting, but even I'll admit that he's Bradmans equal, not better than him
So what's this other forum you post at, sideshowtim?
The guy makes some incredibly compelling arguments. Ponting > Bradman.
And imagine how much more of this there'd be if Bradman wasn't Australian!Or so some would have you believe.
This is a thread, really, to highlight how good we have it here on CricketWeb. Sure, sometimes we feel we shouldn't have to be debating what we're debating and are at ends with the reality that some of our members could feel how they do about certain topics, but when you compare it to some of the debates that are forced out at other sites, well.. I'll let the posts do the talking.
Reading through some of those posts really made me appreciate the validity of a Ponting v Tendulkar thread...
Sounds suspiciously like Neil Harvey.I found a counter post which is even better.
Quote:
You can’t be serious with this discussion can you Brian....Has anybody ever managed to take a look at a test wicket lately?, could anybody possible imagine what Don Bradmans and about another 20 odd Australian batsman from the first half of the last century would have made on the current wickets...have a good, good think about it.
Don Bradman would have made 400 in a day on these current Australian wickets and a few of his team mates would have made 250-300 in a day.
Ricky Ponting would not have made the Australian Second 11 during the Bradman Era, nor would he have averaged more than 20 against the great West Indies bowling attack of the late 70s to mid 80s.
When was the last time he said something good about the current Australian cricket team (from the AB era to today)?Sounds suspiciously like Neil Harvey.
Actually, CricketWeb would be the most objective cricket site that I've encountered.This thread is actually a good example of how one-eyed and bandwagonish cricketweb can be.
how so?
Get the feeling Yawer's post was in jest.Actually, CricketWeb would be the most objective cricket site that I've encountered.
That counter post sounds suspiciously like some posters here who reckon the cricketing world came to an end on 1.1.2001.
Can't stand this nonsense about M.D.Y - it's 1\9\2001 FFS. And The World didn't come to an end, it just changed FFS.Its 9.1.2001, ftr.
Nah, I didn't have it wrong. Its just you Brits do everything backwards, is all.Can't stand this nonsense about M.D.Y - it's 1\9\2001 FFS. And The World didn't come to an end, it just changed FFS.
Most people in the Uk actually say "27th of March" actuallyDo you say March 27th or the 27th of March?
'Nuff said.
Yeah, he might be gone for five minutes as well..Go on Richard, over to that forum, correct every single one of them. I see another 60,000 posts - better still, 60,000 posts that I don't have to read.
Well theres you're problem then, isn't it?Most people in the Uk actually say "27th of March" actually