The Ashes are coming home!

[Richard]

however if you have taken offense, then i apologise

So you expect someone to not take offence at being called a buffoon when they clearly aren't?

 

[Swervy]

And I am bored by yours... fact is, as far as I'm concerned you're wrong, far as you're concerned I am.
I can't be bothered to dish-out calling people bufoons when they aren't - I'd call you an overracting, snide ******* sometimes, but not a bufoon, because you clearly aren't.
I never questioned C_C's knowledge of a severe back-injury - I questioned his knowledge of Atherton's situation, of which he had less than I did, because I've read his autobio and C_C has never claimed to.

thats good...I can take the overacting and the snide but I couldnt take the buffoon..you have made my night

 

[tooextracool]

The same thing could be said about Pollock, but that'd just mean that he was bowling faster than he actually was..

err he could have bowled within himself in the past.

It is, but most pitches in SA are quicker than those elsewhere..

point being? some SA wickets are faster than others, hence in certain series hes recorded as being faster and in certain others hes not.

It is, and if that were the case it'd be wrong every ball and the same thing would be the case for every bowler.

err it MIGHT be wrong every ball, it might not. but if you watched pollock or asked any player about him, they'd tell you that hes gotten visibly slower.

 

[Swervy]

So you expect someone to not take offence at being called a buffoon when they clearly aren't?

its not so clear from where I am standing

 

[superkingdave]

buffoon

2: a person who amuses others by ridiculous behavior [syn: clown, merry andrew]

 

[Swervy]

buffoon

2: a person who amuses others by ridiculous behavior [syn: clown, merry andrew]

its almost a compliment

 

[Richard]

go count the number of catches hes dropped in the slips.

Then count the number he's caught, make-up a catch:drop ratio and compare it to other good slippers (not the exceptional ones like M. Waugh, Fleming, Taylor).
It'll still compare pretty well.

i doubt it, and i dont care whatever you want to call it, hes disgraceful now, so i wouldnt doubt that he was at least 'poor'. then

He was average as far as I'm concerned, and that he's been disgraceful since 2001 doesn't affect that from where I'm standing.

so how much indian cricket have you watched then? prasad was one of the most relaible fielders in the deep.

I've watched Prasad in 3 ODIs, nothing else.
That's why I was surprised.

the thing is YOU SAID that they didnt drop catches regularly outside the ashes. fact is they did, just look at the series against NZ in 99.

I said they didn't often, they were sometimes good (eg The Oval 2003) sometimes execrable (eg SSC 2003\04) and that hasn't changed much.

 

[Richard]

buffoon

2: a person who amuses others by ridiculous behavior [syn: clown, merry andrew]

What's 1?
The "ridiculous behavour" utterly negates the "amuses others".

 

[Richard]

thats good...I can take the overacting and the snide but I couldnt take the buffoon..you have made my night

If you deny either I'm willing to read... just my perception, just as me being a bufoon may or may not be yours.

 

[superkingdave]

n 1: a rude or vulgar fool [syn: clown]

but it can mean either, i don't think Swervy meant number one. and i certainly think that 'others' are 'amused' by what they consider 'ridiculous' comments from yourself

 

[Swervy]

If you deny either I'm willing to read... just my perception, just me being a bufoon may or may not be yours.

arrgh you have lost me there

 

[Richard]

err he could have bowled within himself in the past.

Unless we have reason to believe he has, why would we think so?

point being? some SA wickets are faster than others, hence in certain series hes recorded as being faster and in certain others hes not.

And it's regular enough to even itself out, IF he bowled within himself on any occasion.

err it MIGHT be wrong every ball, it might not. but if you watched pollock or asked any player about him, they'd tell you that hes gotten visibly slower.

They would, and they'd say the same about lots of other things and be wrong too.

 

[Richard]

n 1: a rude or vulgar fool [syn: clown]

but it can mean either, i don't think Swervy meant number one. and i certainly think that 'others' are 'amused' by what they consider 'ridiculous' comments from yourself

Exactly.
And as such it's a gross insult.

 

[Richard]

arrgh you have lost me there

Well I can't make it much clearer.

 

[tooextracool]

Then count the number he's caught, make-up a catch:drop ratio and compare it to other good slippers (not the exceptional ones like M. Waugh, Fleming, Taylor).
It'll still compare pretty well..

go ahead and do it then

He was average as far as I'm concerned, and that he's been disgraceful since 2001 doesn't affect that from where I'm standing..

no it doesnt, but it doesnt change the fact that he wasnt anything other than poor to start of with.

I've watched Prasad in 3 ODIs, nothing else.
That's why I was surprised...

im surprise he was actually poor in all of those 3 ODIs.

I said they didn't often, they were sometimes good (eg The Oval 2003) sometimes execrable (eg SSC 2003\04) and that hasn't changed much.

i dont think the side of 2003 is comparable to the side now, especially considering that it was long before our string of victories began.
and im not surprised at all that you ignored the series vs NZ in 99, were they were just as poor as they have been in any ashes series.

 

[Swervy]

Exactly.
And as such it's a gross insult.

if you took it as a GROSS insult, then I apologise for making myself not 100% clear...you do amuse me with your ridiculous comments, and so the second definition fits the bill as far as my perception of you goes....dont take it to hard, ..you make me laugh, you are funny without meaning to be, that is a great gift to have..a natural comedian

 

[tooextracool]

Unless we have reason to believe he has, why would we think so?.

for the same reason that you think flintoff bowled within himself for 2 games and not in the 3rd.

And it's regular enough to even itself out, IF he bowled within himself on any occasion.

how the hell do you know that?
he might have bowled within himself more often in certain series and not in others.

They would, and they'd say the same about lots of other things and be wrong too.

i doubt it because they actually face them, unlike the speedo, which cant be assumed to be very accurate.

 

[marc71178]

No, just considerably more successful (due mainly to weaker opposition in the run-up).

No, considerably better a side.

Remember some of us actually watched cricket back then...

 

[marc71178]

Neither Giles nor Croft have changed much in their Test-careers -

No, Croft remained crap throughout.

GIles has changed, if he's not a wicket-taking threat he keeps it tight.

 

[marc71178]

And who clearly always had the potential to average more.

So, you'll now tell how you come to this, when you weren't even watching Cricket at the time then...