So you haven't seen it then?
I'm sure your excitement will decrease
Printable View
So you haven't seen it then?
I'm sure your excitement will decrease
This match is fascinating, nothing I'd rather be watching. If you can't appreciate that, I pity you. Only shame is the commentary on Sky is not as good as when it was on Channel 4 or BBC back in the day. I did enjoy listening on the radio in the car though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cripps
Watch Cook and his lets score no runs tactic he is employing.
If you think that is fascinating, you don't know cricket seeing as scoring runs is the aim
:lol: I knew more about cricket as a 10 year old than you're ever likely to know. Presumably you think hitting 30 off 20 balls then getting out would be better, but with 3+ days still to play he's doing absolutely the right thing, building an innings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cripps
It might not suit your attention span, but I suspect the fact it suits your WUMmitude gives it some merit.
Shut up cripps you moron.
Yeah, that's what I should be posting in every cricket related exchange with him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Syn
Oh dear.Quote:
Originally Posted by cricketsi
Resorting to the WUM thing usually means you have no argument.
Better luck next time
So if a dumbass is smarter than you, what does that make you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cripps
Scoring more runs over a longer period of time is better than scoring fewer runs faster. Not rocket science is it?
Rocket science :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by cricketsi
Awful brain surgery
But you're not smarter. I've just proven that.Quote:
Originally Posted by cricketsi
Dear god, it's like talking to a brick wall.
What's better, scoring 30 off 20 balls or 20 off 146 balls?
It's a no brainer.
Just look at today's play. The whole talk is of Agars innings. 98 off 101 balls. No doubt you think that was an awful innings though cos by your logic, runs don't matter. Staying at the crease does :roll eyes:
Scoring 30 off 20 balls will usually better, except in some circumstances when you are playing for time to save a match, when time at the crease might be more important.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cripps
Here's one for you:
In the context of this afternoon's play for England, what is better, scoring 30 off 20 balls and getting out, or scoring 29 off 150 balls and still being in at the close of play? There's only one correct answer here by the way, and if you can't work it out you're beyond cricketing redemption.
Brainless discussion. And Cripps, if you don't want to be called a WUM you won't avoid Cricketsi's last point. If you're capable, answer it.
The last point where he said there's only one answer and acting all high and mighty?
You're acting no different. And yes. It's not about scoring 'fast' or 'slow'. Anyone who has played cricket to a decent level knows the red ball does a lot more in the air and off the seam. It seems you're not capable of acknowledging the relative probabilities of surviving when pushing forward with the bat to score runs compared to playing with soft hands and defending. Do you seriously think batsmen enjoy hanging about doing 'fuck all' but surviving? You think Dravid enjoyed dropping his hands against 90mph bowling and taking bruises around the ribs in every Aussie tour? He does it to survive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cripps
What would you call a football fan who keeps shouting about how every team shouldn't worry about defending and just throw everyone forward in every attack? Or a boxing fan who keeps saying a boxer shouldn't worry about guarding his face but only punching the opponent? Because that's equivalent to what you're saying. In any sport there is this balance between playing safe and attacking, and the top guys in their field are successful because they work out those changing odds according to the changing conditions. This is really basic stuff.
Cripps, you should gone with Kohli :haha: rather than pollute the thread with the usual bullshit. He got out for 2 so you'd have a point.
And when someone is playing defensively in football, you are amongst the first to criticise. Why is this so different?
I'm no hypocrite. I like to be entertained. I'm a fan and I want England to win this series. Not particularly fussed if they don't but as long as its entertaining, to fans that's the main thing.
Is this entertaining? No. It's to put it in a way you'd understand, Stokeing it up.
If a number 11 batsmen can come out and play like that, then accomplished batsmen have no excuse not to
Usual bullshit which no one has ever proven me wrong in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Bendtner
:doh:
Lets give you Testicles a question of your own. It is one I have asked before and hasn't been answered and I've just been reminded of it by the usual bs WUMming by Dennis Bendtner whoever he is.
Put a kid in front of a tv and make him watch Agars innings. Then put him in front of Cooks.
Which is more likely to get him in to the game of cricket?
Tests are not popular these days. That is something that can't be argued against. The crowds all over the world at Test matches are very low. Why is that?
Another question that is that's been avoided whenever it has been asked
:blink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Cripps
It doesn't matter if it's entertaining or not. The bottom line is - it's not a choice between scoring 80 off 70 balls and 80 off 210 balls. It's a choice between scoring 80 off 70 balls with probability x, and scoring 80 off 210 with probability y. You're too stupid to realise this.Quote:
I'm no hypocrite. I like to be entertained. I'm a fan and I want England to win this series. Not particularly fussed if they don't but as long as its entertaining, to fans that's the main thing.
Is this entertaining? No. It's to put it in a way you'd understand, Stokeing it up.
If a number 11 batsmen can come out and play like that, then accomplished batsmen have no excuse not to
Highest grossing films of all time:Quote:
Originally Posted by Cripps
1 Avatar
2 Titanic
3 The Avengers
Best selling doesn't mean most skillful. We're not talking about what is more popular so don't change the subject. You criticising batsmen for playing slow is suggesting they're not doing their jobs properly. You're saying they could score the same runs in less balls. That's the issue I'm taking up with you. The 'entertaining' argument is a nice cop out but we're not discussing it right now because we have done many times before.
Doesn't matter if its entertaining or not? Wtf?Quote:
Originally Posted by Syn
And you call me stupid?
I'm a fan. It's all that matters. Making stupid emoticon faces cos you're too idiotic to get the comparison doesn't get you off.
Entertainment may not matter to the players, it does to fans. You're not a player no matter how deluded you are
Why don't you sort out a tour of England, ring up Afridi and ask him to open the batting for you. Let us know how you get on.
And they can score the same amount in less balls. There's no excuse. A number 11 did it. All this defensive shit does is add pressure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Syn
The best form of defence is attack. You may have not have heard of this cops you aren't the brightest but it relates to this. If Cook gets out early tomorrow, this whole evening session has been a waste. Some would say it has been already.
If he does score runs and gets a 50 or a hundred, it will be to facing deliveries like he did today which again backs up my point. If he can do it tomorrow then why not do it today? It's all hypothetical ATM of course.
I noticed how both my questions were conveniently left unanswered as they have been many times. Didn't expect an answer. You don't have one that would justify your not scoring runs is better than scoring runs tactic.
Players are there to win. That's their job. They win by scoring runs or taking wickets and ultimately whether their team wins. Whether they entertain you doesn't matter in terms of how well they're doing their job. You can win ugly, you can win in style - as we know, it all counts the same. You're suggesting players are not doing their job well because they're not entertaining you. But if they're scoring runs - and Trott, Cook and many others you criticise average high (50 in Tests) and their team is winning, they are doing their job. What about this is so difficult to understand?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cripps
Wtf are you on about?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Bendtner
More importantly who are you? It's not the first time you've tried to act all clever and made to look an idiot due to things you know f all about.
Keep out ofmit
I'm looking at it from a fans pov. And Cook, Trott etc play the same way in ODIs and they are shit in that so it doesn't get them results. It didn't get them the win in New Zealand either and England since beating India to go top of the rankings a couple of years back have been poor in tests.Quote:
Originally Posted by Syn
That's the crux of your argument. And it's simply not true. On the odd occasion, playing overly aggressively will pay off. But generally batsmen are cautious because they need to be cautious. Your logic is not right either. Sport isn't transitive. Just because a no.11 scores 100 off 90 doesn't mean a no.3 should. But over time, the no.3 should definitely average more than the no.11.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cripps
Don't you understand the difference between batting at 1,2,3 and 11?
No one is denying there's more than one way to skin a cat. But for some reason you're placing batting at the top in direct comparison with the bottom. New ball, often cloud cover, fresh seamers compared to old ball and sunshine. It's completely different.
Best not to go down the idiot route when you're consistently on your own in these threads.
A number 3 should try :good:Quote:
Originally Posted by Syn
Playing defensively and getting out which always happens helps no one.
There is overly aggressive but there is overly defensive and the latter is what Cook was doing today and there was no reason to be. This Aussie attack is shit. Put the pressure on them by scoring runs. Not on your own team be not scoring runs
They are all cricket players aren't they? Number 11 batsmen will have to bat nearly every innings in a test so you're saying they shouldn't bother?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Bendtner
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cripps
The ball is round. New or not it does the same thing.
Cloud cover is bs.
As is sunshine.
Neither play a part in a batsman innings
Agreed.
Believe it or not, that's ultimately what you're arguing despite everyone in world cricket telling you different.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cripps
So the opening batsmen can play the same way as Agar did then after allQuote:
Originally Posted by Syn
Isn't the point that it's far, far, far more likely you're going to get out cheaply if you play like it's a limited overs game than if you try and build an innings. And a number of batsmen getting out cheaply when there's still, say, 3 days left is suicide. It might look good for 15 minutes smashing 20 off an over or two but is ultimately fruitless. And yes players can have an innings like Agar's today where everything they hit is gold, but more often than not they don't, and far more often than not they go out very quickly. And it ignores the point that a number 11 can play with such freedom because no one expects anything of them, whilst a top order batsman is expected to build a solid score for the next one's in not just get quick runs for the sake of it.
And yes, obviously a 70 ball hundred is hundred is preferable to a 400 ball hundred, but there is a hell of a lot more chance involved when you just play swing-and-a-miss as opposed to being disciplined and protecting your wicket. And that's ignoring how difficult it is to do it in the first place.
In any case, if I derided test matches so much and went on and on and on about how boring and pointless they are I just wouldn't watch them in the first place. Ah screw it I don't care.
Anyway, Agar may as well retire now. It's all downhill from here.
^ yes.
The problem with complaining about the lack of attacking is the assumption that every scenario in cricket is the same. When it obviously isn't. Equating an opener's innings to a tail-ender's, equating an ODI to a Test match, equating a match in England with one in the subcontinent, equating playing the new ball to playing the old one.
But hey, apparently the ball is round so :shrug:
It is round :good:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Bendtner
Ok answer me this as you and others have failed to answer the previous 2.
Agar just plays the innings of the match and then gets out. When he came in, Aussies were 117-9, that's pressure. He got out and a few minutes later, England come out to bat under the same conditions on the same pitch with what I assume is the same ball yet they play like they did. Why? Your ridiculous theory of new ball, conditions etc doesn't wash today as they had the same things going on Agar did yet he produced and they haven't. And they are meant to be the batsmen.
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Cripps
Jebus. :haha:
anyway, India are about to finally get beaten by Sri Lanka in the final. Unless dhoni can maverick up another rescue mission on a ridiculous pitch. Should see Rohit Sharma's wicket - the ball might as well have rolled.