Not Funny.Originally posted by warrioryohannan
The conclusion we have arrived at is that ur judgement is rubbish and premature, and resembles that of someone suffering from CJD.
Nope thats wasn't i was talking about, read thisOriginally posted by vishnureddy
He just said that they were better bowlers because they bowled in tandem. He meant to say that if only one of them were there and no great bowler at the other end then their record would not have been that good. Marc it was posted in the Most Overrated player thread.
Oh right, didn't remember that - had I done I would have responded.Originally posted by vishnureddy
He just said that they were better bowlers because they bowled in tandem. He meant to say that if only one of them were there and no great bowler at the other end then their record would not have been that good. Marc it was posted in the Most Overrated player thread.
Originally posted by marc71178
Because you've been proved wrong?Proved wrong?? over what?? i said i wanted to stop because the thread was getting no where.
U were obviously then talking about Neil's older post, lemme tell u fellow , the criteria for judging a cricketer is still the same, nothing have changed .20+ onedayers and 15+ test matches are the minimum a player must have played before one can pass a judgement based on stats.And I wasn't talking about a post from Rik.