Don't know. I can't read.Illterate in cricketing terms...
You've heard the term "cricket illiteracy" before now... no?
How on Earth anyone can seriously claim that Twenty20 has yet had an effect on anything in international cricket baffles me. Most countries have only been playing it for a year or two. Even England have had just 4 seasons of it. The main internationals of the past few years have hardly played any.
Regardless of the effect Twenty20 may or may not have in the future, to suggest it is currently impacting is illiterate on the game of cricket.
I don't think anyone is making that claim. Pretty much every opinion offered in this thread has been in the future tense.How on Earth anyone can seriously claim that Twenty20 has yet had an effect on anything in international cricket baffles me. Most countries have only been playing it for a year or two. Even England have had just 4 seasons of it. The main internationals of the past few years have hardly played any.
Regardless of the effect Twenty20 may or may not have in the future, to suggest it is currently impacting is illiterate on the game of cricket.
I meant an effect on the way the players play the other games.Depends what you mean by an effect, really.
No doubting that (well, I'm not totally sure about Nixon, has always been regarded as a shrewd one-day "finisher", albeit without the not-outs to prove it), but mixing-up different game-forms has long been a problem in English selection.I'd say it has directly affected our ODI selection already; Messers Nixon & Yardy wouldn't have got a go without it, certainly.
Aside from the fact that the thread title is a truncated sentence and reasonably meaningless without the reader embellishing it, it really is deemed irrelevant by the actual content of the posts in the thread, which are almost exclusively in the future tense.In case you haven't noticed the thread was titled "bowlers benefitting from Twenty20". That use is in the current-tense.
nice to see you take notice of what is posted, and not just the thread titleIn case you haven't noticed the thread was titled "bowlers benefitting from Twenty20". That use is in the current-tense.
Nope, and maybe if you didn't have such a pre-prejudiced attitude you might realise I don't.Aside from the fact that the thread title is a truncated sentence and reasonably meaningless without the reader embellishing it, it really is deemed irrelevant by the actual content of the posts in the thread, which are almost exclusively in the future tense.
Ffs, do you have to criticise every little thing?
Given that I didn't quote and contradict a single post, what exactly makes you think I didn't...?nice to see you take notice of what is posted, and not just the thread title
How on Earth anyone can seriously claim that Twenty20 has yet had an effect on anything in international cricket baffles me. Most countries have only been playing it for a year or two. Even England have had just 4 seasons of it. The main internationals of the past few years have hardly played any.
Regardless of the effect Twenty20 may or may not have in the future, to suggest it is currently impacting is illiterate on the game of cricket.
Oh jeez, weasel words. So what if you didn't criticise a specific post? If you read through your initial post (which I've conveniently included for your perusal), you'll note that it was generally critical of anyone who has a particular opinion, which is bizarre because no-one here even expressed that opinion in the first place.Did I, incidentally, criticise one single post in the thread? If I had, you might have noticed me quoting from it.
Pre-empting? Give me a break. Why get so excited over a point of view that hasn't even been brought up?I was pointing-out a fact - whether I was pre-empting or replying is clearly irrelevant from where you're coming from.
And the fact is, I was pre-empting - I didn't have anything to say in response to what'd already been said, so I didn't reply to anything that had already been said.
Err - it had been brought-up - in the title.Pre-empting? Give me a break. Why get so excited over a point of view that hasn't even been brought up?
You have been the only one recently who has seeked to pick as many non-existent holes as you can possibly find. It does get rather tiring, but as I said - I'm not the sort to give-up the ghost.Now we are to believe that every time you do something that is apparent to everyone else as making a mistake, you were either pre-empting, or simply hadn't bothered to make the point as in this example?