Cricketweb poster with the best understanding of the game

[Anil]

Originally Posted by Neil Pickup

To summarise, life's supposed to be fun and taking everything so damn seriously isn't.

In my book, the best way of dealing with things is humour in some way.

Example, last week, coaching football in a deprived area of Exeter. I'm wearing a coat with a hat and gloves in the front pocket which sticks out a fair distance.

Child: Are you pregnant?

My response could have been anything from silence, put down, b*ll*cking, etc.

Me: Yep, twin boys.

End of issue.

congrats neil!!!

[Pinkline Jones]

I would say that I have close to the best knowledge in the game and on every other subject. My modesty prevents me from omitting "close".

[Camel56]

Id just like to confirm Pinkline's claim. He really is one of the most knowledgable people when it comes to just about every subject, cricket and social commentary included.

[Deja moo]

Originally Posted by Neil Pickup

To summarise, life's supposed to be fun and taking everything so damn seriously isn't.

In my book, the best way of dealing with things is humour in some way.

Example, last week, coaching football in a deprived area of Exeter. I'm wearing a coat with a hat and gloves in the front pocket which sticks out a fair distance.

Child: Are you pregnant?

My response could have been anything from silence, put down, b*ll*cking, etc.

Me: Yep, twin boys.

End of issue.

Sonography for sex determination is legal there ?

[Swervy]

Originally Posted by tooextracool

its all very subjective, most of the people on here seem to be basing their opinion on whos watched more cricket, or who can talk more about what happened 25 years ago. IMO its not whos watched more, its whos watched more closely. people with good understanding of the game should be people who are capable of analysing performances by looking at technique,skill,temperament etc rather than just looking at averages and statistics or people who can just say that so and so player came up with so and so performance on a flat wicket. of course anyone whos watched that would be able to deduce that for himself, certainly it doesnt tell you anything about their knowledge of the game. its almost like a comparison between boycott and cozier. while cozier knows more about cricketing history, and about WI cricket, boycott is much better at analysing players and deciding on his own whether they are good or not. personally i do not respect comments from people who look at stats solely, anyone could do that. equally i dislike people who look at other peoples opinions, so called experts of the game, to decide whether someone is good enough or not. of course its fine to back your opinion occasionally with stats to prove your point, but certainly you've got to base your opinion largely on having watched the game or the player.
using these characteristics, i think i can narrow this list down quite a bit. of course i dont mean for any disrespect for those not on the list, certain mods for example i have hardly heard any off to decided whether they know anything or not. from what ive seen so far swervy seems to fit the categories mentioned above fairly well, in that he bases his analysis of players on watching rather than statistics. luckyeddie, on the rare occasion that he is on topic, has certainly shown that he is capable of analysing player performance based on the situation and conditions. richard occasionally shows that he can evaluate player based on the above characteristics. of course his occasional ridiculous ideas such as mcgrath/pollock getting lucky wickets, richardson struggling on seamer friendly ones, his entire theory about pressure are just annoying. however his theory about first chance averages is one that i like the most, makes plenty of sense to carry it out if it can be done accurately enough. not to forget of course an often forgotten member of the forum anzac, who despite his extremely long posts, usually posts some of the best analysis of batsmen technique and bowlers skill. badgehair, who hasnt been on here for a while, again posts quality information about players that is worth reading. that i think sums it up for my list. again for those not on the list, i do not mean any disrespect, i might just have forgotten to put your name on the list

thats me, that is

[Neil Pickup]

Originally Posted by Deja moo

Sonography for sex determination is legal there ?

It was sufficient to end the isse with a group of 10 year olds who don't know what sonography is

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by Swervy

thats me, that is

just about made it....

[BoyBrumby]

Originally Posted by Neil Pickup

last week, coaching football in a deprived area of Exeter. I'm wearing a coat with a hat and gloves in the front pocket which sticks out a fair distance.

Child: Are you pregnant?

My response could have been anything from silence, put down, b*ll*cking, etc.

Me: Yep, twin boys.

End of issue.

Cheeky little bleeder!

You should've thrashed him to within an inch of his life!!

Spare the rod, spoil the child I say.

NB: Would be humour. I do not adovcate violence towards minors. Unless, of course, they have annoyed me in some way!

[Richard]

Originally Posted by tooextracool

so all his wickets in both aus-sa series were of poor strokes? and the one against eng in aus in 03? and you conviently missed both the series in india, and therefore the series against NZ recently must be just an anomaly?

If you remove a single Test (when he certainly got all his wickets through poor strokes) his figures against South Africa add-up to not especially good, so that he got most wickets through poor strokes doesn't matter too much.
Yes, too, McGrath was not especially impressive in The Ashes 2002\03 - though I don't doubt he'd have been devestating if he'd bowled when Caddick took his 7-for.

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by Richard

If you remove a single Test (when he certainly got all his wickets through poor strokes) his figures against South Africa add-up to not especially good, so that he got most wickets through poor strokes doesn't matter too much..

from which test in which series are you talking about?

Originally Posted by Richard

Yes, too, McGrath was not especially impressive in The Ashes 2002\03 - though I don't doubt he'd have been devestating if he'd bowled when Caddick took his 7-for.

oh yes im sure he must be disappointed with that disgraceful average of 20 at the end of that series, despite bowling on all the flat wickets of the series.

[Son Of Coco]

Originally Posted by Richard

If you remove a single Test (when he certainly got all his wickets through poor strokes) his figures against South Africa add-up to not especially good, so that he got most wickets through poor strokes doesn't matter too much.
Yes, too, McGrath was not especially impressive in The Ashes 2002\03 - though I don't doubt he'd have been devestating if he'd bowled when Caddick took his 7-for.

Every one of McGrath's wickets in a test fell through poor strokes!? Wow, that's amazing, and it reinforces my theory that your idea of what is a poor stroke and what isn't doesn't take into account what the bowler is actually trying to do at the time. Do you think about whether the bowler is working to a plan? Whether after tucking the batsman up with a few short balls (well, maybe more than a few) the ball pushed up and wide of off stump that induces an edge may not have anything to do with luck at all but actually be part of the plan?

[Langeveldt]

Originally Posted by BoyBrumby

Spare the rod, spoil the child I say.

Wrong..

Spare the rod, Mutilate the minor

Can't say I love children tbh

[BoyBrumby]

Originally Posted by Langeveldt

Wrong..

Spare the rod, Mutilate the minor

Public school, eh? Six of the best? Trousers down?!?

[Mr Casson]

Originally Posted by Langeveldt

Word.. live and let live..

Group hug

Group hugs are the bomb. Too bad people get so awkward about them lol.

Earlier this year I started a chain hug at school. You had to pass it on to someone else (there was no time limit; I just persistently annoyed the hell out of whoever had it). It worked pretty well for a while - I was proud of it!!

[BoyBrumby]

Originally Posted by Mr Casson

Group hugs are the bomb. Too bad people get so awkward about them lol.

Earlier this year I started a chain hug at school. You had to pass it on to someone else (there was no time limit; I just persistently annoyed the hell out of whoever had it). It worked pretty well for a while - I was proud of it!!

& you're absolutely sure this was just an excuse to cop a feel of the fitter lasses?!?

Wow. How far off topic am I? Er, SJS, he's kwality!