Vaughan to score an ODI ton before his 100th ODI?

[Richard]

even though the injury actually happened in 98

And of course there wasn't another one in 2000, was there?

so the significant rise in his ER is all magical then?

No, he just got punished more for his wayward spells. His good spells were still as good.

 

[Richard]

and murali can bowl a delivery no one else can. who else can bowl with a wrist spinners action and get it to turn the other way without bowling a googly?

I've said otherwise where?

so now you claim that murali doesnt turn it more than any other spinner, lets see if you pal hotink agrees about this too.

You'll be lucky, he's hardly been around recently.
As I say, I've studied the revs and Murali just spins it in different directions to other spinners, not more.

yes which basically means, that you will only consider peoples opinions when they agree with you, and not when they dont, not surprising of course, and then you expect to use that as evidence that im wrong. pure genius that.

No, it means that if someone disagrees with me I'll think they're wrong - same as you or anyone else.
If I don't yet have an opinion on the matter, I'll consider theirs.

yes you do, but since you wont admit to what you've actually said, you've tried to twist your way out to save face.

No, you've tried to find some meaning that's not there, to try and take away face.

even though you've already been proven wrong on god knows how many occasions?

No, I haven't.

yet hes clearly rubbish, because you dont like him. come of it, if someone is scoring runs you cant say that hes useless.

Because his record before and after demonstrates that.
I don't like or dislike him, I just don't think he's very good.

so rubbish was he that hes still averaging over 35, and was averaging over 40 for 104 games. well done sherlock, add that to your resume.

Was averaging over 55 for one time, then was averaging under 30 for the rest.

wow like i care.
makes it more likely that hes wrong, because staff members opinions count nowhere near as experts opinions do.

Plenty of Staff Members are experts.

oh yes, some mysterious person who even you dont know off, why does that not surprise me? possible mahanama himself, saying it with sarcasm.
and if its ranjit fernando then it doesnt make things better.

Certainly wasn't Mahanama himself, and I don't think it was Ranjit Fernando either.

WOW, he scored 200 on what can easily be considered the flatttest wicket in the history of the game. not one team was dismissed in any innings, give him a medal.
and 213 matches, you really dont get tired of making an a** of yourself do you?
given how poor SL were pre 96, they would certainly have taken a player of the likes of mahanama at any point in time, just like zimbabwe would have, but just because he happened to play 213 games for a side that was so clearly not ODI or test class, it automatically makes him half decent let alone great doesnt it?

No, it doesn't - his record is poor. I hadn't actually realised quite how poor until I looked at it, though.

 

[Richard]

yes but as ive said one million times, its just like looking at performances against WI in test match cricket now. you can count it yes, but it doesnt suggest particular brilliance.

No, it doesn't - but it does suggest something towards international standards.

yes largely because he was mediocre in those overs.

Wow, there are so many people proven brilliant in those overs, aren't there?

yes he was hammered in the pre- death overs, can you imagine what would have happened had he bowled regularly in the death overs?

No, he just wasn't often hammered in the pre-death overs.

yes i do know what it is, dead rubber is when no matter how badly ealham screwed up, england were still going to win/lose the game. regardless, call it whatever you want, it doesnt change the fact that most of those situations in which he bowled didnt have any consequence on the game.

No, they all did - I didn't count the games where the death-overs had no impact on the game.

but if thats all he can do, its not good enough.

Rubbish, if someone could give you 10-35-1 every game you'd bite their hand off.

and on the whole he usually had performances of 10-40-1. fact is he very rarely had performances that were 3 or 4 wicket hauls.

No, he didn't, but that doesn't matter, becuse OD cricket is more about economy-rate than wickets. When the wicket was seam-friendly he was more likely to get 10-28-1 or something.

and therefore their relation to genuine finger spinners is absolutely 0.

Well observed.

OMG you really need to do something about that IQ. i was referring to the "And you reckon Saqlain wasn't an intelligent bowler?"

So - in other words you DO reckon Saqlain isn't an intelligent bowler.

nor was he particularly intelligent. which is precisely my point.

And he was darn lucky how little batsmen ran down the pitch to him. Possibly his height had something to do with that - but he did get hammered sometimes when batsmen used their feet. I hated to watch it, but it happened nonetheless.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Well folks Vaughan is now up to 74 caps without a century...