FootballNews

Sawajiri Erika wrote:When Australians are dishing it out it's sledging. When it comes the other way they cry abuse.

Sledging is a term used more commonly within on-field players, rather than what comes from spectators mouths.

Sledging/banter/heckling... call it what you like but if you want to dish it out be prepared to take it back.

God Tongue wrote:Sledging/banter/heckling... call it what you like but if you want to dish it out be prepared to take it back.

I agree but can't recall too many times when fielders sledged/heckled spectators.

I guess you really need to be an australian to like the australian cricket team, even then...

Bomber wrote:

God Tongue wrote:Sledging/banter/heckling... call it what you like but if you want to dish it out be prepared to take it back.

I agree but can't recall too many times when fielders sledged/heckled spectators.

They'd be stupid to react.

N5 1BH wrote:I guess you really need to be an australian to like the australian cricket team, even then...

Nothing more than supporting the mob winning and doing their best for my country. Some see them as nasty bully boys, well, so be it. Why should I care?

Bomber wrote:

N5 1BH wrote:I guess you really need to be an australian to like the australian cricket team, even then...

Nothing more than supporting the mob winning and doing their best for my country. Some see them as nasty bully boys, well, so be it. Why should I care?

Do you not find is embarrassing though when the bullies are crying that they're being bullied?

God is an Englishman wrote:

Bomber wrote:

N5 1BH wrote:I guess you really need to be an australian to like the australian cricket team, even then...

Nothing more than supporting the mob winning and doing their best for my country. Some see them as nasty bully boys, well, so be it. Why should I care?

Do you not find is embarrassing though when the bullies are crying that they're being bullied?

Time and place. Spectators commenting on wives/kids is all class I suppose. Heat of the battle between two teams on the field is th e difference you're missing. Plus I don't see anyone "crying" as opposed to answering some questions fired at them by journalists.

Do you care that everyone thinks Millwall supporters are considered thugs and bad eggs?

The phrase "Clutching at straws" comes to mind.

Bomber wrote:
Time and place. Spectators commenting on wives/kids is all class I suppose. Heat of the battle between two teams on the field is th e difference you're missing. Plus I don't see anyone "crying" as opposed to answering some questions fired at them by journalists.

Do you care that everyone thinks Millwall supporters are considered thugs and bad eggs?

Thought I'd answered this already. Simple answer really - no one likes us, we don't care.

Fact 1: your coach recently encourage crowds to abuse a player

Fact 2: one of your players is now having a cry because the crowd abused him

This just highlights Aussie crickets hypocrisy AGAIN.

So for you Bomber - who was wrong here?

A) Lehman
B) Warner

God is an Englishman wrote:

Bomber wrote:
Time and place. Spectators commenting on wives/kids is all class I suppose. Heat of the battle between two teams on the field is th e difference you're missing. Plus I don't see anyone "crying" as opposed to answering some questions fired at them by journalists.

Do you care that everyone thinks Millwall supporters are considered thugs and bad eggs?

Thought I'd answered this already. Simple answer really - no one likes us, we don't care.

Fact 1: your coach recently encourage crowds to abuse a player

Fact 2: one of your players is now having a cry because the crowd abused him

This just highlights Aussie crickets hypocrisy AGAIN.

So for you Bomber - who was wrong here?

A) Lehman
B) Warner

Who's Lehman?
"Abuse" vs personal family attack - I know even you can work that one out given recent history, but as usual, everything is black and white with you (when it suits)

So Broad didn't get any personal abuse? Abuse which was encouraged by your coach.

So, who was wrong?

A) Lehmann
B) Warner

God is an Englishman wrote:So Broad didn't get any personal abuse? Abuse which was encouraged by your coach.

So, who was wrong?

A) Lehmann
B) Warner

Which family member of Broad was verbally attacked?

Re your question, I'd have to phone a friend on that as one I can't recall who stated clearly it was ok to attack family members by either A or B.

Well I personally heard broad's father the subject of abuse.

Lehman encouraged abuse, was that ok?

Is it OK for Warner then to whinge because the crowd abused him?

God is an Englishman wrote:Well I personally heard broad's father the subject of abuse.

Lehman encouraged abuse, was that ok?

Is it OK for Warner then to whinge because the crowd abused him?

When a reporter asks him about it, what do you expect him to say, yeah just good banter mate? You might see it as a whinge, but I know you get confused with the term as you do enough of it yourself only to call it "merely stating facts".

Whoever abused Broad's father to him was a numbskull, no doubting that.

Bomber wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:Well I personally heard broad's father the subject of abuse.

Lehman encouraged abuse, was that ok?

Is it OK for Warner then to whinge because the crowd abused him?

When a reporter asks him about it, what do you expect him to say, yeah just good banter mate? You might see it as a whinge, but I know you get confused with the term as you do enough of it yourself only to call it "merely stating facts".

Whoever abused Broad's father to him was a numbskull, no doubting that.

A lot of numbskulls there then.

It seems to be your definition of whingeing cannot include anything done by an australian and everything done by an Englishman.

God is an Englishman wrote:

Bomber wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:Well I personally heard broad's father the subject of abuse.

Lehman encouraged abuse, was that ok?

Is it OK for Warner then to whinge because the crowd abused him?

When a reporter asks him about it, what do you expect him to say, yeah just good banter mate? You might see it as a whinge, but I know you get confused with the term as you do enough of it yourself only to call it "merely stating facts".

Whoever abused Broad's father to him was a numbskull, no doubting that.

A lot of numbskulls there then.

It seems to be your definition of whingeing cannot include anything done by an australian and everything done by an Englishman.

And the reverse with you.

^^^^^ BOOM ^^^^^^^

Bomber wrote:
A lot of numbskulls there then.

It seems to be your definition of whingeing cannot include anything done by an australian and everything done by an Englishman.

And the reverse with you.[/quote]

I'd deny that obviously but as long as you can see your own errors then that's fine by me

.......says the bloke who can't quote properly (after so many years).

Bomber wrote:.......says the bloke who can't quote properly (after so many years).

so on a thread about the hypocritical whingeing of the cons, all you have is my quoting error.

God is an Englishman wrote:

Bomber wrote:.......says the bloke who can't quote properly (after so many years).

so on a thread about the hypocritical whingeing of the cons, all you have is my quoting error.

"all I have......."

You're off your game today, maybe as it's Monday............but at least you can admit to your error so that's fine by me .

Bomber wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:

Bomber wrote:.......says the bloke who can't quote properly (after so many years).

so on a thread about the hypocritical whingeing of the cons, all you have is my quoting error.

"all I have......."

You're off your game today, maybe as it's Monday............but at least you can admit to your error so that's fine by me .

Yes, my biggest error is deleting a bit too much. I will hang my head in shame

Far bigger errors whilst your hanging you head in shame:

- hooking up with an Aussie bird
- Millwall
- thinking being a pom is something that needs to be instilled into others as being some sort of advantage
- whingeing about anything and everything any "nasty Aussies" does
- calling us convicts when the real ones came from Britain (remember its all about "blood" according to some)
- thinking Muscat is some sort of demi-god

Shall I go on or let you play around with those for a while?

Bomber wrote:Far bigger errors whilst your hanging you head in shame:

- hooking up with an Aussie bird
- Millwall
- thinking being a pom is something that needs to be instilled into others as being some sort of advantage
- whingeing about anything and everything any "nasty Aussies" does
- calling us convicts when the real ones came from Britain (remember its all about "blood" according to some)
- thinking Muscat is some sort of demi-god

Shall I go on or let you play around with those for a while?

None of those were errors though

God is an Englishman wrote:

Bomber wrote:Far bigger errors whilst your hanging you head in shame:

- hooking up with an Aussie bird
- Millwall
- thinking being a pom is something that needs to be instilled into others as being some sort of advantage
- whingeing about anything and everything any "nasty Aussies" does
- calling us convicts when the real ones came from Britain (remember its all about "blood" according to some)
- thinking Muscat is some sort of demi-god

Shall I go on or let you play around with those for a while?

None of those were errors though

So where did convicts come from?

Bomber wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:

Bomber wrote:Far bigger errors whilst your hanging you head in shame:

- hooking up with an Aussie bird
- Millwall
- thinking being a pom is something that needs to be instilled into others as being some sort of advantage
- whingeing about anything and everything any "nasty Aussies" does
- calling us convicts when the real ones came from Britain (remember its all about "blood" according to some)
- thinking Muscat is some sort of demi-god

Shall I go on or let you play around with those for a while?

None of those were errors though

So where did convicts come from?

England, Ireland, Greece... They then went on to form the people we know as Australians. As an Englishman that means I'm not a descendant of a convict and therefore not a Pom.

God is an Englishman wrote: England, Ireland, Greece... They then went on to form the people we know as Australians. As an Englishman that means I'm not a descendant of a convict and therefore not a Pom.

I'm guessing vast majority came from England. You're always on about "what's in the blood" so sorry, "cons" were more English than anything else.

Bomber wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote: England, Ireland, Greece... They then went on to form the people we know as Australians. As an Englishman that means I'm not a descendant of a convict and therefore not a Pom.

I'm guessing vast majority came from England. You're always on about "what's in the blood" so sorry, "cons" were more English than anything else.

originally yes they were majority English. However, are the descendants of those cons australian or English? Were they entitled to a British passport at birth? Unless they have purely bred with other English people then the English blood has been diluted.

God is an Englishman wrote:

Bomber wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote: England, Ireland, Greece... They then went on to form the people we know as Australians. As an Englishman that means I'm not a descendant of a convict and therefore not a Pom.

I'm guessing vast majority came from England. You're always on about "what's in the blood" so sorry, "cons" were more English than anything else.

originally yes they were majority English. However, are the descendants of those cons australian or English? Were they entitled to a British passport at birth? Unless they have purely bred with other English people then the English blood has been diluted.

So maybe you need to factor this in when referring to "cons" - ie, vast majority of Aussies wouldn't fit the bill.
Plus blood doesn't have nationality - it has blood types, so has little relevance as opposed to upbringing and national "traits".