Shoaib Akhtar = awesome

[Richard]

He said he struggled with the change in the type of ball they used in England

In spite of the fact that New Zealand is one of the few places that still use the same ball as England.
Excuse-making, in other words.
He still made it swing every now and then - just wasn't anywhere near accurate enough.
As per usual.

[Richard]

So if you take twenty wickets on a flat deck and make over 500 at your turn batting and win the test comprehensively by nine wickets and out play the opposition in every area of the game you don't deserve to win?

Not given that it was a once-in-a-very-long-while underpeformance by the opposition.

[Richard Rash]

Nope, watching Styris in plenty of other innings told me that.

Ok that doesn't make sense at all. You could determine how the bowlers were bowling and assume they were bowling crap just because you have seen Styris bat before? Maybe, just maybe Styris punched above his weight and played above himself.. In any case people like Martin Crowe and Ian Smith said it was one of the best innings they had seen played by a NZer ever

[Richard Rash]

In spite of the fact that New Zealand is one of the few places that still use the same ball as England.
Excuse-making, in other words.
He still made it swing every now and then - just wasn't anywhere near accurate enough.
As per usual.

I am just telling you what he said regarding his performance in England. I don't think he would just make it up that they were using different balls. Too many people would know around cricketing circles if he were lying. People should be able to confirm that I am right in saying they use different balls in England than that to NZ and Richo is just lying without checking his facts just to try get one over me finally.

[Richard Rash]

Not given that it was a once-in-a-very-long-while underpeformance by the opposition.

Not really. The first test was even. And you said NZ had no right to even draw the series so SA must have underperformed in the first test to only manage a draw against little old NZ. And even you have admited that Chris Martin bowled well. He was the difference on a flat track. SA didn't bowl that badly. They took two early wickets and then had NZ 220 for five or something like that until Chris Cairns took them apart like he can to any attack on his day regardless of whether they are bowling badly or not. Chris Martin bowled awesomely well and NZ took 20 wickets on a flat track relatively cheaply and won the test by nine wickets and dominated the game and played bloody well and definetly deserved to win the test

[marc71178]

Not given that it was a once-in-a-very-long-while underpeformance by the opposition.

You are unbelievable.

If it is a once in a long while, how come SA's results recently have been poor and they've dropped from 2nd to 6th?

[Richard Rash]

You are unbelievable.

If it is a once in a long while, how come SA's results recently have been poor and they've dropped from 2nd to 6th?

It's not.. Richard just begins to make stuff up like that when he runs out of things to say that back up his usual awful arguments

[Richard]

You are unbelievable.

If it is a once in a long while, how come SA's results recently have been poor and they've dropped from 2nd to 6th?

Because the ratings-system is a farce? Surely that's obvious to anyone?
Almost everyone loses in Sri Lanka and India - likewise almost everyone beats all the subcontinental teams and West Indies at home, and loses to Australia.
The only true genuine contests for South Africa are against New Zealand and England.
Because they've drawn two series they should have won - and are now on track to lose another - their results seem poor.

[Richard]

It's not.. Richard just begins to make stuff up like that when he runs out of things to say that back up his usual awful arguments

Copying the common tacks, I see.

[Richard Rash]

Copying the common tacks, I see.

Sorry? Anyway i just proved you wrong on three occasions above. I can only begin to imagine how much crap you must have posted before my time. 10,000 posts. Thats a big waste of space.

[marc71178]

Because the ratings-system is a farce? Surely that's obvious to anyone?

Do better then wise guy.

Either way that doesn't say anything about the fact that they've been playing pretty poorly and getting the results they deserve, but you still can't give the other side credit for it.

[Richard]

Sorry?

You're copying tooextracool's attempts to dismiss stuff by saying "you're making it up, because I think you're wrong - so you have to be making it up, otherwise you'd be right".

Anyway i just proved you wrong on three occasions above.

No, you didn't.
Just coincidence that I've managed to come-up with an answer for everything, I suppose.

I can only begin to imagine how much crap you must have posted before my time. 10,000 posts. Thats a big waste of space.

Yeah, yeah - resort to insults if you must.

[Richard]

Do better then wise guy.

I've already told you that there was already a better system - the original simple one.
No, that wasn't faultless either, but that's the whole point as well - you can't do the thing faultlessly.
The best thing is purely and simply not to try to do the thing at all.

Either way that doesn't say anything about the fact that they've been playing pretty poorly and getting the results they deserve, but you still can't give the other side credit for it.

Because it was just a poor side beating an even poorer side.

[marc71178]

Of course, yes. New Zealand are poor aren't they?

I forgot that you can decide that sort of thing and ignore their record (which has only recently taken a downturn)

[Richard Rash]

No, you didn't.
Just coincidence that I've managed to come-up with an answer for everything, I suppose.

No you haven't. You haven't replied to my last three statments further up because you have run out of things to say to back your very poor argument up presumably.