Brett Lee - Protected Species?

[vic_orthdox]

nothing wrong with having a strong opinion, but attacking those who have a balanced view of an issue (because few things in the world are ever black and white) as fencesitters doesn't sit well with me (pardon the pun)

 

[Top_Cat]

because few things in the world are ever black and white

That's funny; we were given t-shirts by the boss where I work and the slogan on it is 'nothing is black and white'. Maybe that's why they hired me.

 

[Fiery]

nothing wrong with having a strong opinion, but attacking those who have a balanced view of an issue (because few things in the world are ever black and white) as fencesitters doesn't sit well with me (pardon the pun)

I didn't think the term "fencesitter" was that derogatory or offensive and I didn't mean it as such. I just think the issue of whether or not Brett Lee deliberately bowled a beamer to Razzaq be fairly black and white. He did and those who think it may not have been deliberate are kidding themselves.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Top Cat, i thought you might have known that you can't have a balanced view on this forum. it means your a fence sitter with no ticker. you must be really biased either way to have your opinion respected.

Then Slow Love, Top Cat and SJS have no ticker, just because they're admirably objective?

 

[Fiery]

Then Slow Love, Top Cat and SJS have no ticker, just because they're admirably objective?

I think you'll find he was being sarcastic.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

I feel faceted.

 

[Fiery]

I feel faceted.

Better than being faecesed I suppose

 

[Richard]

I didn't think the term "fencesitter" was that derogatory or offensive and I didn't mean it as such. I just think the issue of whether or not Brett Lee deliberately bowled a beamer to Razzaq be fairly black and white. He did and those who think it may not have been deliberate are kidding themselves.

I'd say it's pretty darn likely.
But it is not certain.
Possibly only Lee knows whether it was deliberate or not.

 

[marc71178]

Possibly only Lee knows whether it was deliberate or not.

Don't put yourself down, surely you know more about him than he does?

Unless he's told anyone, then only he knows whether it was deliberate or not, there's no "possibility" in it.

 

[Richard]

Which is what I meant.
It's not impossible he's told someone - if he hasn't he's the only one who knows absolutely for certain whether or not it was deliberate.

 

[marc71178]

So you're backtracking from earlier comments then.

About time.

 

[Richard]

Really?
Find me where I said "Lee bowled that Beamer deliberately", then.

 

[marc71178]

I'm talking about now accepting that only the bowler himself knows what is actually going on in his bowling.

If you know more than Flintoff then you must know more than Lee as well.

Since you've accepted you don't know more than Lee you've accepted that Flintoff knows more about his own bowling than you do.

 

[Richard]

No, I've said only Lee knows whether or not he bowled a single delivery deliberately or not.
I've not said I don't know whether or not Flintoff's bowling better than he was before 2003\04.

 

[Slow Love™]

That Lee bowled that beamer at Razzaq deliberately is certainly suggested, by the following:

a) the fact that he very rarely bowls beamers - I couldn't remember the last time he'd bowled one. It's an extremely rare occurrence (although I heard he bowled one today, funnily enough)

b) his demonstrated anger at Razzaq for the beamer bowled at him

c) the fact that the beamer he followed up with was in the same match, and indeed, at the same bowler that he got beamed by

d) his unapologetic response after he bowled it (Razzaq did apologize after he did)

None of us will ever know for certain, but it would take believing in some pretty extreme co-incidence (and ignoring some of what we saw) to insist that it wasn't deliberate. The best I can come up with personally is probably "it looked like it was, but I hope that it wasn't."

 

[Dizzy #4]

yes, he is

 

[marc71178]

No, I've said only Lee knows whether or not he bowled a single delivery deliberately or not.
I've not said I don't know whether or not Flintoff's bowling better than he was before 2003\04.

So in the case of one player you don't know more than he does because you don't know what he's thinking.

For a second player you still don't know anything about his thinking (or his physical condition and training) but think you know more than he does about himself?

Please explain for us how it is you know this.

 

[age_master]

That Lee bowled that beamer at Razzaq deliberately is certainly suggested, by the following:

a) the fact that he very rarely bowls beamers - I couldn't remember the last time he'd bowled one. It's an extremely rare occurrence (although I heard he bowled one today, funnily enough)

b) his demonstrated anger at Razzaq for the beamer bowled at him

c) the fact that the beamer he followed up with was in the same match, and indeed, at the same bowler that he got beamed by

d) his unapologetic response after he bowled it (Razzaq did apologize after he did)

None of us will ever know for certain, but it would take believing in some pretty extreme co-incidence (and ignoring some of what we saw) to insist that it wasn't deliberate. The best I can come up with personally is probably "it looked like it was, but I hope that it wasn't."

as i said somewhere else he could well have intended it a low full toss and it just slipped a fraction early.

 

[Richard]

So in the case of one player you don't know more than he does because you don't know what he's thinking.

For a second player you still don't know anything about his thinking (or his physical condition and training) but think you know more than he does about himself?

Please explain for us how it is you know this.

Err - try the fact that we have two different issues here.
For one (Lee), WHAT HE WAS THINKING is the issue, the only issue.
For another, what he is bowling is the issue, what he may or may not have been thinking is simply a contributory factor to what he has bowled, and one that you don't need to know to be able to see what he bowled.
We all know what Lee bowled, because it was just one delivery. What matters is whether he bowled it deliberately
With Flintoff the issue is not whether or not he bowled something deliberately, it's whether or not his bowling over a long period of time has changed (why it has changed is not the issue - because it actually hasn't changed).
Understand that?

 

[Fiery]

http://foxsports.news.com.au/story/0,8659,12408577-23212,00.html