FootballNews

MegaBonus wrote:

God is an Englishman

MegaBonus wrote:

@ (tiresome) Hawksey

Has the WACA been prepared to counter a perceived strength of NZ?

Yes or no will suffice....

Yes

Actually No, it's been prepared to play to Australia's strengths

.


so which one is it????

It's a NO, because it's been used to play to Australia's strengths

that's not what I asked and you know it....

australias strength doesn't necessarily mean its NZ's weakness..

I'll take that as you conceding defeat....

MegaBonus wrote:that's not what I asked and you know it....

australias strength doesn't necessarily mean its NZ's weakness..

I'll take that as you conceding defeat....

I answered NO, what more do you need.

Is this easier for you to understand - Κανένα

for you to stop using google translator...

MegaBonus wrote:for you to stop using google translator...

It's the only chance of getting a Greek translator. I mean you all speak English. Well you understand the important phrases anyway.

2 beers please mush

Lack of sportsmanship again from australia

What happened?

Taylor walked off the pitch after just scoring the highest test score ever by a visiting batsmen in Australia. He was just ignored by the Aussies, no congratulations, no applause, no pats on the back.

Even the Commentators mentioned it.

Taylor didn't seemed too bothered about it. Oh those nasty Aussies............(who will probably have a beer or 3 with him after the test).

Knew you would defend it.

It's bad sportsmanship, something the Aussies know well enough.

The supporters generally are a nasty bunch but will applause something of greatness. Pity the players can't do the same.

Poor sportsmanship
Doctoring pitches
Playing foreigners

Knew you'd whinge about it too.

I like your description of the England team with those last 3 however.

And another mid series retirement

Bomber wrote:Knew you'd whinge about it too.

I like your description of the England team with those last 3 however.

So it's whingeing to tell what happened now?

Basically almost all the things that the Aussies have whinged about previously have been done by Australia in this series.

God is an Englishman wrote:And another mid series retirement

Did he get his Mum's permission?

God is an Englishman wrote:

Bomber wrote:Knew you'd whinge about it too.

I like your description of the England team with those last 3 however.

So it's whingeing to tell what happened now?

Why not report on all the tons the Aussies have scored? Who's in front? Nah, lets just wait till I don't like what an Aussie has done then post another cry about it.

I await your Millwall players applauding a West Hammer if/when he scores a record 6 goals in a game against you.

Bomber wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:

Bomber wrote:Knew you'd whinge about it too.

I like your description of the England team with those last 3 however.

So it's whingeing to tell what happened now?

Why not report on all the tons the Aussies have scored? Who's in front? Nah, lets just wait till I don't like what an Aussie has done then post another cry about it.

I await your Millwall players applauding a West Hammer if/when he scores a record 6 goals in a game against you.

You may not have realised this but football is not cricket.

I've been in the ground when Paul Merson was applauded off the pitch.

Wish I could remember where it was that you claimed you weren't whingeing as you were just reporting what happened.

Pretty obvious though that all the things the Aussies have whinged about previously have been done by Australia in this series

Yes and tennis is not golf. Sport is sport. Us against them. Beer after game, no problems - till then, out on the pitch, it's war! You can fluff around like the Kiwis in your love-fests, we'll stick to be the nasty blokes thanks.

It appears Dutch (sorry Australian) cricketer Nannes agrees with me - bloody whingers


http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-1 ... ip/6945308

God is an Englishman wrote:It appears Dutch (sorry Australian) cricketer Nannes agrees with me - bloody whingers


http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-1 ... ip/6945308

He's Dutch, played for Netherlands. They're never happy about anything.

God is an Englishman wrote:It appears Dutch (sorry Australian) cricketer Nannes agrees with me - bloody whingers


http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-1 ... ip/6945308

He's not the captain, or the ACB, so his opinion is irrelevant.


Or does that only work when Anderson says something?

Slinky_Pete wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:It appears Dutch (sorry Australian) cricketer Nannes agrees with me - bloody whingers


http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-1 ... ip/6945308

He's not the captain, or the ACB, so his opinion is irrelevant.


Or does that only work when Anderson says something?

No, it only works when it's something directly relevant to something only those people would know.

eg. If someone says a pitch was deliberately ordered then only the captain or the ACB would know that BUT if someone gives an opinion on something that is seen then that's OK.

a further example could be. It's OK for Nannes to say the australians showed bad sportsmanship but not OK for him to say that Clarke deliberately shunned Taylor (unless Clarke actually said that to him)

Hope that helps you understand

God is an Englishman wrote:

Slinky_Pete wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:It appears Dutch (sorry Australian) cricketer Nannes agrees with me - bloody whingers


http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-1 ... ip/6945308

He's not the captain, or the ACB, so his opinion is irrelevant.


Or does that only work when Anderson says something?

No, it only works when it's something directly relevant to something only those people would know.

eg. If someone says a pitch was deliberately ordered then only the captain or the ACB would know that BUT if someone gives an opinion on something that is seen then that's OK.

a further example could be. It's OK for Nannes to say the australians showed bad sportsmanship but not OK for him to say that Clarke deliberately shunned Taylor (unless Clarke actually said that to him)

Hope that helps you understand

Do you really think that Anderson wasn't "qualified" to assert that the English pitch was doctored?

Bomber wrote:Do you really think that Anderson wasn't "qualified" to assert that the English pitch was doctored?

The only people that know for sure is the ECB or the Captain, the rest is just secondary evidence or an opinion.

God is an Englishman wrote:

Bomber wrote:Do you really think that Anderson wasn't "qualified" to assert that the English pitch was doctored?

The only people that know for sure is the ECB or the Captain, the rest is just secondary evidence or an opinion.

Why would he say it if he had doubts? Would be rather silly wouldn't it?

Bomber wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:

Bomber wrote:Do you really think that Anderson wasn't "qualified" to assert that the English pitch was doctored?

The only people that know for sure is the ECB or the Captain, the rest is just secondary evidence or an opinion.

Why would he say it if he had doubts? Would be rather silly wouldn't it?

It would yes. Still doesn't mean it's come from a first hand source though

About to see the quitter come out and bowl for the last time

48 overs and setting them 321

Any comment on a bloke quitting mid series?

God is an Englishman wrote:Any comment on a bloke quitting mid series?

Honestly I think it is weak - if he had any doubts at the start of the series he shouldn't have played.
If he wants to retire mid-series, that's fine but he should still play the series out.

The fact that he reportedly cried after day 3 after getting smacked around the ground all day says a lot about his character.
Happy to abuse the opposition to try and intimidate them when things are going well, but when he gets carted he can't handle it.

Was a good bowler - 313 test wickets proves that - but won't go down as one of the greats.

Some of his spells against South Africa though made for some terrific test cricket